[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55599-55627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21583]
[[Page 55599]]
Vol. 78
Tuesday,
No. 175
September 10, 2013
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Species Status for Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon
neomexicanus) Throughout Its Range; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 55600]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0063; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY24
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Species Status for Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon
neomexicanus) Throughout Its Range
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine endangered
species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as
amended, for the Jemez Mountains salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus).
This final rule implements the Federal protections provided by the Act
for this species. We have also determined that critical habitat for the
Jemez Mountains salamander is prudent and determinable in the proposed
rule and will soon publish in the Federal Register our final
determination designating critical habitat for the Jemez Mountains
salamander.
DATES: This rule becomes effective October 10, 2013.
ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfm, and the rule as well as
comments and materials received are available at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0063. Comments and
materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the
preparation of this rule, will also be available for public inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna NE.,
Albuquerque, NM 87113; by telephone 505-346-2525; or by facsimile 505-
346-2542.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wally Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office
(see ADDRESSES section). If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species or
subspecies may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered
or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be
completed by issuing a rule. On September 12, 2012 (77 FR 56482), we
proposed to list the Jemez Mountains salamander (Plethodon
neomexicanus) under the Act as an endangered species and proposed to
designate critical habitat. In that document we explained that the
species currently faces numerous threats of high magnitude, and,
therefore, qualifies for listing and requested additional information
and comments on the proposed listing. This final rule considers all
comments received by peer reviewers, tribes, State agencies, Federal
agencies, and the public regarding the proposed rule to list the Jemez
Mountains salamander. This is our final determination to list the Jemez
Mountains salamander as endangered.
The basis for our action. Under the Act, a species may be
determined to be an endangered or threatened species based on any of
five factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the Jemez Mountains
salamander meets the definition of an endangered species due to three
of these five factors.
Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers
to comment on our listing proposal. We also considered all comments and
information received during the comment period.
Background
Previous Federal Actions
Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Jemez Mountains
salamander (77 FR 56482; September 12, 2012) for a detailed description
of previous Federal actions concerning this species.
We have also determined that critical habitat for the Jemez
Mountains salamander is prudent and determinable in the proposed rule
and will soon publish in the Federal Register our final determination
designating critical habitat for the Jemez Mountains salamander.
Species Information
The Jemez Mountains 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 (the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide)
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 of the Jemez Mountains salamander 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.
Genetic studies on plethodontid salamanders in North America
suggest that the Jemez Mountains salamander is more closely related to
western Plethodon species than to eastern Plethodon salamanders, and
that the Larch Mountain salamander (P. larselli) found in Oregon and
Washington is no longer considered the most closely related species to
the Jemez Mountains salamander (Mahoney 2001, p. 184). In many of the
analyses presented by Mahoney 2001 (entire), the Jemez Mountains
salamander is basal to all other western Plethodon (that is, it
maintains the most derived characters, or, that other western Plethodon
are more closely related to each other than any are to the Jemez
Mountains salamander), but still, the relationship of the Jemez
Mountains salamander to other western plethodontid salamanders remains
partially unresolved. Nonetheless, it has been demonstrated that the
Jemez Mountains salamander's closest relatives are western
[[Page 55601]]
salamanders of the Pacific Northwest of the United States and include
Van Dyke's salamander (P. vandykei), Larch Mountain salamander (P.
larselli), Siskiyou Mountains salamander (P. stormi), Del Norte
salamander (P. elongatus), western red-backed salamander (P.
vehiculum), Dunn's salamander (P. dunni), and the green salamander
(Aneides aeneus) (Mahoney 2001, pp. 178-183). These species, including
the Jemez Mountains salamander, are thought to be the result of an old,
rapid diversification (Mahoney 2001, p. 185).
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 Jemez Mountains 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 U.S.
Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (Bandelier National
Monument), Valles Caldera National Preserve, and Los Alamos National
Laboratory, with some habitat located on tribal land and private lands
(New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 2000, p. 1). The Valles Caldera
National Preserve 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 appointed by the President
of the United States with distinct areas of experience or activity
(Valles Caldera Trust 2005, pp. 1-11). Prior to Federal ownership in
2000, the Valles Caldera National Preserve 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).
Biology
The Jemez Mountains salamander is strictly terrestrial, does not
possess lungs, and does not use standing surface water for any life
stage. Respiration (the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide) 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, but 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 melting snow and summer monsoon
rains. When active above ground, the species is usually found under
decaying logs, rocks, bark, or moss mats or inside decaying logs or
stumps.
Changes in pH (acidity or alkalinity) can affect plethodontid
salamander behavioral and physiological responses (Cummer and Painter
2007, p. 34). 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 salamander body sodium, body water levels,
and body mass (Frisbie and Wyman 1991, p. 1050). Significant
differences in habitat features (soil pH, litter depth, and log size)
were reported between the logged and unlogged sites (Ramotnik 1986, p.
8). 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). The type and quantity of
vegetation affects soil pH (e.g. pine needles are acidic, decomposed
pine needles can increase the soils acidity), and thus could also
affect the salamander.
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 some 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 were closest to the average temperature (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 during the rainy season (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 2 to 3 years. Eggs are thought to
be laid underground in the spring, about 9 to 10 months after mating
occurs (Williams 1978, p. 475). Fully formed Jemez Mountains
salamanders hatch from the eggs.
The lifespan of the salamander in the wild is unknown. However, in
2013 a marked salamander was observed at a previous study site where
salamanders were uniquely marked with fluorescent elastomer (a colored
epoxy injected under the skin) from 1996 through 2000. Based on the
colors used, this salamander was likely marked in 1998 or 1999.
Juvenile salamanders received a different kind of marking, indicating
that this wild salamander is minimally 14 years old, but more likely
15-17 years old.
[[Page 55602]]
Movements, Home Range, and Dispersal
Ramotnik (1988, pp. 11-12) used implanted radioactive wires in
polyethylene tubing to track nine individual Jemez Mountain 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 that
individual distances salamanders moved between consecutive observations
ranged from 0 to 108 ft (0 to 33 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), and the greatest total recorded distance of an individual
was 144 ft (43.9 m) over 22 days (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). The smallest estimated home range was
10.7 ft\2\ (1 m\2\) and the largest 220.7 ft\2\ (20.5 m\2\) (Ramotnik
1988, p. 28).
In a mark-recapture study conducted by the New Mexico Department of
Game and Fish (NMDGF), the average distance of 32 movements measured
via recapture either in the same year or from year to year, measured
over the course of approximately 10 years within a 164-ft-by-164-ft
(50-m-by-50-m) plot, was 19.6 ft (5.98 m), with a maximum distance
moved from original capture site of 60.7 ft (18.5 m) (NMDGF 2000, p.
15). In this same study, one salamander was observed near the same log
nearly 5 years later (NMDGF 2000, p. 16). The data from this study
suggest that Jemez Mountains salamanders generally move very little
(NMDGF 2000, p. 16). While the data on Jemez Mountains salamander
movements are limited because of small sample size, they provide
important information on the relatively small movements made by
individuals and their relatively small home range, and show that,
occasionally, individuals can make larger movements.
For another well-studied terrestrial salamander, the red-backed
salamander (Plethodon cinereus), researchers have conflicting evidence
regarding 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 (53-269 ft\2\, 5-25 m\2\) (Kleeberger and Werner
1982, p. 411). However, there is other evidence of moderate-distance
homing ability (90 m, 295 ft) (Kleeberger and Werner 1982, p. 411).
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, resulting in a reduction in
breeding success, and other, less densely populated habitat is
available (Cabe et al. 2007, p. 53). In a more closely related
terrestrial salamander, the Siskiyou Mountains salamander, individuals
are reported to make daily to seasonal vertical migrations in the
ground surface as microclimate conditions change, but not extensive
horizontal movements (Olson et al. 2009, p. 3). Furthermore, genetic
analyses indicate limited gene flow in the Siskiyou Mountains
salamander and that populations may have been on isolated evolutionary
pathways for a very long time (Olson et al. 2009, p. 3).
Because the Jemez Mountains salamander makes very small horizontal
movements and has limited potential for long-distance horizontal
movements, habitat connectivity limitations could have profound effects
on populations. These effects could occur from increased vulnerability
to genetic drift (the process where small population size causes chance
alterations in the genetic composition of a population by natural
selection) and inbreeding, fewer successful breeding opportunities, and
increased susceptibility to stochastic events (occurring in a random
pattern, such as floods, fires, and tornados). Gene flow and population
structure has not been assessed in the Jemez Mountains salamander, but
would provide useful information for population management and
identification of important areas to protect in order to maintain
habitat connectivity.
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) (Reagan 1967, p. 17;
Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28). Although pure stands of Ponderosa pine
may not be considered ideal habitat, the species has occasionally been
found in this habitat. The species has also occasionally been found in
spruce-fir and aspen stands, and high-elevation meadows. However, these
habitat types have not been adequately surveyed so the extent to which
salamanders use these habitats is not fully known. Predominant
understory trees include Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum), New
Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana), oceanspray (Holodiscus sp.), and
various shrubby oaks (Quercus spp.) (Reagan 1967, p. 17; Degenhardt et
al. 1996, p. 28).
Everett (2003, entire) reported habitat variables for 23 sites
where Jemez Mountains salamanders were found. Everett (2003) reported
that the salamander occurred on all slope aspects (p. 21) (the average
slope ranged from 4 to 40.5 degrees (p. 24)); were within 14.0 to 99.8
percent canopy cover and averaged 58.2 to 94.3 percent canopy cover (p.
24); and were found under logs (35 percent), rocks (34 percent), bark
(9 percent), and inside logs (22 percent). Available cover objects
included rock (52 percent), coarse woody debris (7 percent), bark (11
percent), and cow pie (i.e., manure, less than 1 percent) (p. 24).
There may be high-elevation meadows located within the critical habitat
units that are used by the Jemez Mountains salamander. Currently, we do
not fully understand how salamanders utilize areas like meadows, where
the above ground vegetation component differs from areas where
salamanders are more commonly encountered (e.g., forested areas);
however, salamanders have been found in high-elevation meadows.
Salamanders are generally found in association with decaying coniferous
logs (which they use as cover and daytime retreats), and in areas with
abundant white fir, Ponderosa pine, and Douglas fir as the predominant
tree species (Reagan 1967, pp. 16-17; Ramotnik 1988, p. 17).
Salamanders use decaying coniferous logs (particularly Douglas fir
logs) considerably more
[[Page 55603]]
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).
Subsurface geology and loose rocky soil structure may be an
important attribute of underground salamander habitat (Degenhardt et
al. 1996, p. 28). Geologic and moisture constraints likely limit the
distribution of the species. Soil pH (acidity or alkalinity) may limit
distribution as well. However, the composition of this subterranean
habitat has not been fully investigated. Everett (2003) reported that
the salamander occurred in areas where soil texture was composed of 56
percent sandy clay loam, 36 percent clay loam, 6 percent sandy loam,
and 2 percent silty clay loam (p. 28); the overall soil bulk density
ranged from 0.2 to 0.98 ounces per cubic inch (oz/in3) (0.3
to 1.7 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3) (p. 28); and had
average soil moisture from 4.85 to 59.7 percent (p. 28). The
salamander's subterranean habitat appears to be deep, fractured,
subterranean, igneous rock in areas with high soil moisture (New Mexico
Endemic Salamander Team 2000, p. 2). Many terrestrial salamanders
deposit eggs in well hidden sites, such as underground cavities,
decaying logs, and moist rock crevices (Pentranka 1998, p. 6). Because
the Jemez Mountain salamander spends the majority of its life below
ground, eggs are probably laid and hatch underground. Although no egg
clutches have been discovered in the wild, it is believed they are laid
in the fractured interstices of subterranean, metamorphic rock.
Jemez Mountain salamanders lack lungs; instead, they are cutaneous
respirators (meaning they exchange gases, such as oxygen and carbon
dioxide, through their skin). To support cutaneous respiration its skin
must be moist and permeable. Jemez Mountain salamanders must address
hydration needs above all other life-history needs. The salamander must
obtain its water from its habitat. In addition, it has no physiological
mechanism to stop dehydration or water loss to the environment. Based
on this information, it is likely 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). We suspect
that these components may be a main driver behind salamander
occurrences and distribution. We are aware of two modeling efforts that
have been initiated on the relationship of subsurface rock and soil
components of salamander habitat that we anticipate will help inform
our understanding of the distribution of the salamander, but these are
not yet completed. In addition, because microclimates where conditions
are moist and cool are important to the species, we also suspect that
variables that contribute to or work in concert with one another to
provide moist cool microclimates are important to the species. For
example, shading on hills provided by topography and mosaic patterns in
canopy closure provide shading and allow precipitation to reach the
soil.
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). Standardized survey
protocols have been used for the salamander since 1987 (NMDGF 2000, p.
2), but the number and location of surveys have been variable and
opportunistic. Survey methods involve searching under potential cover
objects (e.g., logs, rocks, bark, moss mats) and inside decomposing
coniferous logs when environmental conditions are likely best for
detecting surface-active salamanders, generally May through September,
when summer monsoon rains occur. Unfortunately, methods for determining
locations to survey salamanders over the past 20 years have not been
systematic, and though we have conducted a comprehensive review, the
data have not been consistently available to allow comparison of the
status of the salamander over its entire range.
Three survey protocols have been in use since 1987 (NMEST 2000b,
pp. 27-29). Protocol A (presence or absence) has been used when
attempting to determine whether an area is occupied (NMEST 2000b, p.
27). Following this protocol, surveys cease after 2 ``person-hours'' of
effort (e.g., one person searching for 2 hours or two people searching
for 1 hour) or when the first salamander is observed, whichever comes
first. Because the salamander utilizes underground habitat and an
unknown number of individuals may be active at the surface, repeated
surveys may be necessary to determine occupancy of a locality (NMEST
2000b, p. 27).
Protocol B (population levels and trends) has been used for
comparing plots, monitoring trends through time, or evaluating how
salamander localities fluctuate in response to environmental variables
(NMEST 2000b, p. 28). For this protocol, a survey is conducted for 2
person-hours, with all salamanders tallied.
Protocol C (detailed environmental data) collects microhabitat data
to characterize potential salamander habitat (NMEST 2000b, p. 28). This
protocol involves collecting data on important habitat features within
a 50 m (160 ft) by 2 m (6.6 ft) transect, in addition to surveying for
salamanders under cover objects.
The rangewide population size of the salamander is also unknown.
Monitoring the absolute abundance of plethodontid salamanders is
inherently difficult because of the natural variation associated with
surface activity (Hyde and Simons 2001, p. 624), which ultimately
affects the probability of detecting a salamander. The probability of
detection varies over space and time and is highly dependent upon the
environmental and biological parameters that drive surface activity
(Hyde and Simons 2001, p. 624). Given the known bias of detection
probabilities and the inconsistent survey effort across years,
population size estimates using existing data cannot be made
accurately.
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 256-ft-by-256-ft areas, 200-m-by-200-m).
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 (Hyde and Simons 2001, p. 624).
Therefore, the probability of detecting a salamander is highly variable
and dependent upon the environmental and biological parameters that
drive aboveground and belowground activities ((i.e., moisture,
temperature) Hyde and Simons 2001, p. 624). 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. Given the known bias of detection probabilities (i.e., the
difficulty in detecting
[[Page 55604]]
salamanders when present due to being underground, secretive, and
sparse numbers) and the inconsistent survey effort across years, as a
result of differences in the number of days when surveys occurred,
differences in environmental conditions, and different survey methods
employed, 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, 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). The number of areas
where salamanders were once present, but have not been observed during
more recent surveys, also appears to have increased (New Mexico
Heritage Program 2010a and b, spreadsheets). Alternatively, there are
two localities on the Valles Caldera National Preserve where the
salamander continues to be relatively abundant (Redondo Border located
in the central portion of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, and on
a slope in the northeast portion of the Valles Caldera National
Preserve), compared to most other recent detections at other sites.
Still, the number of individuals found at the two above referenced
localities in the Valle Caldera National Preserve is far less than
historical reports from other areas. For example, 659 individual
salamanders were captured outside the Valle Caldera National Preserve
at one location in Sandoval County in a single year in 1970, and 394 of
the 659 were captured in a single month (Williams 1976, p. 26). The
maximum number of salamanders captured rangewide is 68 salamanders
(observed in 2005). In other words, the number of salamanders observed
during recent surveys is far less than observed in historical surveys.
Currently, there is no known location where the number of salamanders
observed is similar to that observed in 1970.
Overall, the numbers of salamanders found at some of the localized
survey areas appear to be similar from survey to survey and from year
to year. Surveys are conducted 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 when
surveys are conducted during optimal environmental conditions, fewer or
no salamanders are captured, particularly along the western and
southern sides of the range, (New Mexico Heritage Program 2010a and b,
spreadsheets). An assessment of population trends using these data
would not be appropriate because estimates of detection probabilities
were not collected, and repeated surveys within the same year were not
regularly conducted. Without specifically accounting for detection
probabilities using repeated survey techniques, it is unknown whether a
trend in population is an actual trend or is due to a greater or lesser
proportion of salamanders present being above ground or below ground,
which is driven by environmental conditions such as temperature and
moisture. For example, if one year a small proportion of a population
was above ground and in the next year a large proportion of the
population was above ground, it could be interpreted that the number of
individuals increased at that site; however, actual numbers could have
been unchanged. We have not fully explored future studies that could
make use of the existing data; however, we expect that detecting
overall trends will be difficult for this species, given data
limitations, the cost of comprehensive surveys and protocols to account
for natural, annual, and spatial variation, and the long timeframe
needed to detect trends.
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 at surveyed
sites during wet environmental conditions indicate that salamanders are
now more difficult to find during most surveys than they were 20 years
ago and earlier, and the number of areas with surveys resulting in no
salamander detections is increasing. On this basis, which is the best
available scientific information, we conclude that the Jemez Mountains
salamander is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the proposed rule
during two comment periods. The first comment period associated with
the publication of the proposed rule opened on September 12, 2012 (77
FR 56482), and closed on November 13, 2012. We also requested comments
during a period that opened on February 12, 2013 (78 FR 9876), and
closed on March 14, 2013. We also contacted appropriate Federal and
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. A
newspaper notice inviting general public comment was published in the
Los Alamos Monitor. We did not receive any requests for a public
hearing.
During the first comment period, we received nine comment letters
addressing the proposed listing of the Jemez Mountains salamander with
endangered status and the proposed critical habitat designation. During
the second comment period, we received 11 comment letters addressing
the proposed listing of the Jemez Mountains salamander, the proposed
critical habitat designation, the draft environmental assessment or the
draft economic analysis. All substantive information provided during
comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final
determination or addressed below.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from seven knowledgeable
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and
conservation biology principles. We received responses from three of
the seven peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of Jemez
Mountains salamander. All three peer reviewers agreed that the
information presented in the proposed rule to list the Jemez Mountains
salamander as an endangered species is scientifically sound and well
researched; that the assumptions, analyses, and conclusions are well
reasoned; and that the information is well formulated and the risks or
threats to the species are not undervalued. The peer reviewers provided
clarifications and suggestions to improve the final rules to list the
Jemez Mountains salamander as endangered and to designate critical
habitat. Peer reviewer comments specifically regarding the listing of
the Jemez Mountains salamander are addressed in the following summary
and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
[[Page 55605]]
Biology and Background Section
(1) Comment: Two peer reviewers and some commenters thought
additional information regarding our understanding of the subsurface
rock and soil components of salamander habitat should be included in
the habitat section. One commenter stated that some factors, including
soil pH and soil bulk density, are ignored or too readily dismissed.
Our Response: Subsurface geology and loose rocky soil structure may
be an important attribute of salamander habitat (Degenhardt et al.
1996, p. 28). However, the composition of this belowground habitat has
not been fully investigated, although soils comprised of pumice or tuft
generally are not suitable. The salamander's belowground habitat
appears to be deep, fractured, subterranean, igneous rock in areas with
high soil moisture (New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 2000, p. 2).
Everett (2003) reported that the salamander occurred in areas where
soil texture was composed of 56 percent sandy clay loam, 36 percent
clay loam, 6 percent sandy loam, and 2 percent silty clay loam (p. 28);
the overall soil bulk density ranged from 0.2 to 0.98 ounces per cubic
inch (oz/in\3\) (0.3 to 1.7 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm\3\) (p.
28); and had average soil moisture from 4.85 to 59.7 percent (p. 28).
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)
(Ramotnik 1988, pp. 24-25). We have updated the relevant sections to
better describe our current understanding of Jemez Mountains salamander
subsurface rock and soil components. We have clarified the language in
section ``Biology'' above, and the ``Fire Exclusion, Suppression, and
Severe Wildland Fires'' section below. We are not aware of any reliable
information that is currently available to us on these topics that was
not considered in this determination process.
Threats
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer did not agree with the conclusion
that fire suppression actions, which include the use of fire
retardants, water dropping, backfiring, and fire line construction, are
not a threat to the salamander.
Our Response: The best commercial and scientific information
available at this time, including the Fire Retardant Biological
Assessment submitted by the USFS (2011, entire), does not evaluate
impacts to salamanders or their habitat from fire suppression actions.
Fire suppression actions, including fire retardants, water dropping,
backfiring, and fire line construction, may both protect and negatively
impact salamanders and their habitat. The effects from fire suppression
on the Jemez Mountains salamander or its habitat are unknown. Fire
retardants may affect individual salamanders and their habitat, but
based the best available scientific and commercial data does not
indicate that it is a threat to the species as a whole.
(3) Comment: Two peer reviewers commented on chemical use in
salamander habitat. One stated that chemical use may constitute a
significant threat to the salamander, implied that the lack of
information does not mean that the threat does not affect salamanders,
and suggested that effects that some chemicals used may have on the
salamander or its habitat should be immediately studied. The other peer
reviewer thought insecticides used to control western spruce budworm
(Choristoneura occidentalis) and bark beetles (Dendroctonus spp., Ips
spp.) should be considered in more detail.
Our Response: We agree with the reviewers that lack of information
about impacts to the species does not mean there are no impacts.
However, the best available scientific and commercial data does not
support the claim that chemical use (including fire retardant chemical)
is currently a threat to the species. Currently, we have no information
on the effects of chemical impacts on salamanders. We are not aware of
any broad-scale use of insecticides in salamander habitat in the past,
which allow us to consider in more detail. Further, we are not aware of
any broad-scale use of insecticides in salamander habitat or proposed
for the future, and have no reason to believe that this could be a
threat in the foreseeable future. The best available scientific data
does not indicate that chemical use is a threat to the salamander.
(4) Comment: The data do not seem strong enough to conclude that
changes in vegetative components alone constitute a threat.
Our Response: We consider existing and ongoing changes in
vegetation composition and structure to be a threat to the salamander
because it is interrelated to changes in fire regimes. In order to
reduce the risk of large-scale stand-replacing wildfire, management
actions to change the current forest conditions are needed.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that unregulated collection
of the Jemez Mountains salamander may be more significant than
credited, while another stated that the current absence of salamanders
at the type locality is disturbing, yet does not prove that
overcollecting is the cause of the decline or disappearance of
salamanders in specific areas. A commenter stated that past collection
was dismissed too readily. The USFS commented that it was not clear if
collections were from the same sites that are used as reference sites
for salamander populations, but that historical collections could still
be influencing salamander populations because of relatively low
fecundity.
Our Response: We believe that the majority of collections were made
at and around the general area located on the southwest portion of the
range of the salamander, south of New Mexico Highway 4. Based on the
number of specimens collected from this area, we believe that the
impact from collections here was significant and was no doubt a
contributing factor in the lack of persistence of the salamander there.
We have reviewed the Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes in this final rule, below, and made
clarifications based on the information available; in some cases, the
source material was not clear. As explained in the Overutilization for
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes,
collection of the species is regulated by several State and Federal
regulations, and illegal collection is not known or thought to be high.
Therefore, the best available scientific and commercial data does not
indicate that collection is presently an ongoing or future threat.
(6) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that increased coordination
efforts on the timing and placement of salvage logging operations could
mitigate the threats posed by salvage logging. Santa Clara Pueblo
stated that salvage logging after wildfire can help alleviate the
hydrophobicity (repelling the absorption of water) of soils through
disturbance of the soils in pulling the salvage logs to a landing area,
and the Service should be careful not to make too sweeping a statement
about the threats posed by salvage logging. Guidelines could be
developed for managing salvage logging that would also benefit the
salamander. The USFS commented that there are many variables to
consider regarding salvage logging, and some measures could be taken
that include salvage logging in order to reduce the risk of re-burning
in areas that have been burned with wildfire.
Our Response: We agree that some impacts resulting from salvage
logging in salamander habitat could be abated through best management
practices, and there may be certain management
[[Page 55606]]
actions regarding some salvage logging that could be of potential
benefit to the Jemez Mountains salamander. We can provide technical
assistance to develop best management practices with those engaged in
salvage logging or timber harvesting in areas that may affect the
salamander or its habitat. Furthermore, best management practices for
minimizing or eliminating adverse effects to the salamander or its
habitat resulting from actions such as salvage logging or timber
harvesting that are funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal
agencies can be developed through section 7 consultation with the
Service.
(7) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the assumption that an
increase in the number of small-diameter trees would result in
increased water demand required for evapotranspiration should be
supported with a citation, or if the situation is more complex, further
explanation of the complexities and uncertainties should be made.
Our Response: We clarified timber harvest actions and included
additional information regarding some timber harvest actions and soil
water (moisture) in this final rule under the ``Forest Silvicultural
Practices'' section under Factor A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range,
below. The dynamic between tree density, thinning, and soil water is a
key ecological process, which is relevant not only to restoration
efforts, but also to salamander physiology. We strongly support
research in this area in the Jemez Mountains. We also agree that some
impacts resulting from timber harvest and thinning in salamander
habitat could be abated through best management practices and could
also benefit the salamander. We look forward to developing best
management practices with those potentially engaged in timber
harvesting in areas that may affect the salamander or its habitat.
Furthermore, best management practices for minimizing or eliminating
adverse effects to the salamander or its habitat resulting from actions
such as timber harvesting that are funded, authorized, or carried out
by Federal agencies can be developed through section 7 consultation
with the Service.
Comments from the U.S. Forest Service
(8) Comment: The USFS commented that there are many variables to
consider regarding salvage logging, and some measures could be taken
that include salvage logging that reduces the risk of re-burning in
areas that have been burned with wildfire.
Our Response: See our response to Comment 6, above.
(9) Comment: The USFS commented that there are still many unknowns,
which lead to numerous assumptions made throughout the document and
provide a clear indication that sufficient data does not exist to
understand this species' status and needs. A public commenter stated
the scientific record accumulated to date is not sufficiently robust to
warrant further regulatory action. Additional data should be collected
before listing the species as endangered. The Service should withdraw
the proposal to list the Jemez Mountains salamander as endangered
because of lack of sound scientific evidence. The proposed rule is
flawed because it relies too much on speculation and assumption rather
than the best scientific information available as required.
Our Response: As required by the Act, we based our proposal and
this final rule on the best available scientific and commercial data.
We requested review from seven scientific experts of our technical
assumptions, analysis, adherence to regulations, and whether or not we
had used the best available information. We received reviews from
three, all three peer reviewers confirmed that the information
contained within this rule is scientifically sound, based on a
combination of reasonable facts, assumptions, and conclusions, and the
science is well considered. We requested new information during the
open public comment period and reviewed information in our files and
other available published and unpublished information, and we consulted
with recognized species experts and other Federal, State, and tribal
agencies. We must make this determination on the basis of the best
scientific and commercial information available at this time, and we
may not delay our decision until more information about the species and
its habitat are available. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v.
Babbitt, 215 F.3d 58 (DC Cir. 2000).
(10) Comment: In light of the unknowns, the number of assumptions
described in the proposed rule, and the difficulty in detecting the
salamander, it does not appear that there is evidence to support the
conclusion that this species is at risk of extinction (i.e.,
endangered) or likely to become endangered throughout all or a
significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future (i.e.,
threatened).
Our Response: Please see Our Response to Comment 9 above. We have
found that the Jemez Mountains salamander is presently in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range based on the severity of threats
currently affecting the salamander. The threats are both current and
expected to continue in the future, and are significant in that they
limit all behavioral and physiological functions, including breathing,
feeding, and reproduction and reproductive success, and extend across
the entire range of the species (For full discussion, see Summary of
Factors Affecting the Species and Determination sections, below).
(11) Comment: The proposed rule vastly increases the area of
potential salamander habitat through loose description of the habitat
and biology. As written, the proposed rule would suggest any mixed
conifer, Ponderosa pine, spruce, and aspen, essentially all forested
lands and meadows between 7,200 and 9,500 ft (2,194 to 2,895 m)
elevation in the Jemez Mountains, to be salamander habitat. Clearly,
that is not the case and has not been the view of the New Mexico
Endemic Salamander Team Cooperative Management Plan as evident from the
conservation area identified in the 2000 Cooperative Management Plan.
Our Response: It is unclear what the commenter is referring to in
regard to an increase in the area of potential salamander habitat. We
assume they are referring to the area of salamander habitat in the New
Mexico Endemic Salamander Team Cooperative Management Plan, but that
was not specified. The Service recognizes there are differences in the
total areas identified in the New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team
Cooperative Management Plan and the proposed listing rule. This
difference is due to the different purposes of identifying habitat. The
areas identified by the New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team in the
Cooperative Management Plan are areas only on National Forest lands
that were delineated ``by combining distribution data with on-the-
ground knowledge of salamander natural history and habitat potentials''
(New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 2000, p. 13) with the intended
purpose of protecting areas known to be important to the species based
on occupancy from actions that might occur there. The Cooperative
Management Plan identified 146,890 acres (ac) (59,444 hectares (ha)) of
salamander habitat on the Santa Fe National Forest for management and
conservation of the species (New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 2000,
p. 14). During our process of determining critical habitat for the
Jemez Mountains salamander (77 FR 56482 September 12, 2012; 78 FR 9876
[[Page 55607]]
February 12, 2013), we proposed designating 56,897 ac (23,025 ha) on
USFS lands on which are found those physical or biological features
essential to the conservation of the species and which may require
special management considerations or protections. However, the
occupancy status of salamander habitat outside of the proposed critical
habitat boundaries is not fully determined and may be larger than the
area initially identified in the Cooperative Management Plan.
(12) Comment: With the exception of the discussion of fire
interval, the proposed rule makes little distinction between dry and
wet mixed conifer. Therefore, it is unclear how the USFS would manage
mixed conifer stands as described in the proposed rule.
Our Response: The proposed rule and this final rule are not
intended to prescribe to agencies how to specifically manage any forest
type under their purview. However, we are interested in working with
land managers to find solutions to minimize adverse effects to
threatened or endangered species and their habitat while conducting
management actions. In addition, we are interested in collaborating on
actions that will help the salamander recover to the point where it is
no longer considered to be endangered or threatened.
(13) Comment: The Service refers to the number of surveys that
resulted in no salamanders being found as the main evidence that the
species is in decline. Yet the USFS continues to find salamanders even
during poor survey conditions. Recent salamander detection results
could be influenced from historical overcollection, previous survey
efforts, and drought with low precipitation during the monsoon season.
Because of the multiple variables that influence salamander detections,
it is unclear how the Service can determine that salamander populations
are declining due to current management while new salamander locations
are detected annually (four in 2011 and three in 2012).
Our Response: The commenter does not identify a specific survey
report for us to reference. We have requested the data, but at the time
of this final rule, we have not received the information. However, in
the Status of the Species section of this final rule, below, we state
that, despite our inability to quantify population size or trends for
the salamander, the 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). The number
of areas where salamanders were once present, but have not been
observed during more recent surveys, has also increased (New Mexico
Heritage Program 2010a and b, spreadsheets).
Alternatively, there are two localities on the Valles Caldera
National Preserve where the salamander continues to be relatively
abundant (e.g., approximately 30 salamanders observed in a day each at
Redondo Border located in the central portion of the Valles Caldera
National Preserve and on a slope in the northeast portion of the Valles
Caldera National Preserve compared to most other recent detections
throughout its range. Still, the number of individuals recently found
at the two localities on the Valles Caldera National Preserve is far
less than other historical records throughout the species range. For
example, in northeastern Sandoval County where the species was first
659 individual Jemez Mountain salamanders were captured in a single
year in 1970, 394 of which 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. Finally, all
three peer reviewers confirmed that the information contained within
this rule is scientifically sound, based on a combination of reasonable
facts, assumptions, and conclusions. One peer reviewer specifically
stated that assumptions made in the section about population abundances
and trends are generally typical for this type of salamander, that the
risks or threats to the species are not undervalued, and if the threats
are not managed, then the probability for a continued downward trend of
this animal with extinction an eventual outcome is foreseeable.
(14) Comment: Peer reviewers of the proposed rule should include
impartial experts in the fields of herpetology, fire ecology, and
forest ecology specific to the southwest to evaluate the multitude of
assumptions.
Our Response: Four of the seven peer reviewers we requested
information from have expertise in the fields of herpetology,
plethodontid salamander biology, fire ecology, and forest ecology.
(15) Comment: The use of the Wyman and Hawksley-Lescault (1987)
citation does not appear applicable to changes in soil pH from
wildfire.
Our Response: The purpose of this citation is to demonstrate that
changes in soil pH could be an important factor in plethodontid
salamander biology because changes in pH can affect their physiology.
We have clarified the language of this final rule in section
``Biology'' above, and ``Fire Exclusion, Suppression, and Severe
Wildland Fires'' below.
(16) Comment: The example for modifying fire management techniques
to include not using flares to ignite large decaying logs or modifying
chemical use in salamander habitat would eliminate the use of
prescribed fire in salamander habitat. Almost all ignitions require the
use of chemicals, whether petroleum fuels in drip torches, or potassium
permanganate in balls dropped from a helicopter. These chemicals are
mostly consumed in the process of getting fire on the ground and are
unlikely to leave residue that could affect the salamander.
Our Response: We are not suggesting that prescribed fire be
eliminated in salamander habitat or that fire management techniques be
modified in a way that would prevent the use of prescribed fire in
salamander habitat. Prescribed fire is clearly a necessary tool for
managing forests in the Jemez Mountains and in salamander habitat.
Furthermore, some activities, such as prescribed fire, can benefit the
salamander and its habitat.
(17) Comment: The Service issued a biological opinion for the Fire
Retardant Biological Assessment prepared by the USFS and should have
all relevant information in their project record concerning whether
chemicals in fire retardants or foams are a threat to the salamander.
Our Response: We have reviewed the administrative record for the
Fire Retardant consultation between the USFS and the Service and did
not find information to assess whether fire retardants or foams
impacted the salamander. Measures were put in place to avoid aquatic
amphibians, but no analyses were done for any terrestrial amphibian.
(18) Comment: The proposed rule gives the widening of State Highway
126 as an example of where the Conservation Agreement failed, yet
recommendations from the New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team were
considered and efforts were taken to minimize effects to the Jemez
Mountains salamander in that area, even though the Federal Highway
Administration undertook the project. The proposed rule neglects to
mention the coordination between the New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team
and the USFS on projects since the signing
[[Page 55608]]
of the agreement, even after the agreement expired in 2010.
Our Response: In regard to the realignment of Highway 126, action
agencies included the Federal Highway Administration and the USFS.
While the project was discussed with the New Mexico Endemic Salamander
Team, and some efforts were made (e.g., an experimental salvage and
relocation of Jemez Mountains salamanders from the footprint of the
realignment and felling trees as future potential cover objects in
areas adjacent to the road), the project still resulted in a large
impact (permanent and complete fragmentation of the population and
destruction of habitat) in a small area with relatively moderate
salamander densities. We analyzed the adequacy of existing conservation
measures at removing or reducing threats to the salamander across the
range of the species such that listing the salamander under the Act is
not warranted, and found that existing conservation measures are not
adequate. The Highway 126 project is an example of how conservation
measures as provided by the Cooperative Management Plan are inadequate
to protect the salamander and its habitat. Further, the Cooperative
Management Plan and the now expired Conservation Agreement only applied
to a portion of the range of the salamander (some portions of USFS
lands), applied to management actions that the USFS might take, does
not specifically address significant threats (e.g., severe wildland
fire, climate change) or actions that could be threats if plans to
minimize impacts to the salamander are not considered (e.g., forest
management such as thinning, prescribed fire), and do not provide
specific mechanisms to protect the species (only that the New Mexico
Endemic Salamander Team would provide discretionary recommendations).
The Cooperative Management Plan and the expired Conservation Agreement
are considered inadequate for providing protection to the salamander or
alleviating threats to the salamander or its habitat.
Comment From Other Federal Agencies
(19) Comment: A new conservation plan should be created in lieu of
listing the salamander as an endangered species.
Our Response: The Act does not provide authority to the Service to
delay listing in order to wait for future, speculative conservation
plans to be developed and implemented.
Comments From the New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA)
(20) Comment: Listing the Jemez Mountains salamander will be
counter-productive to solving the problem of poor watershed health in
the Jemez Mountains and will slow the pace of ongoing forest
restoration work. In addition, listing could alter the State's ability
to acquire matching funds.
Our Response: Listing the Jemez Mountains salamander does not
preclude forest restoration or management practices, including, but not
limited to, prescribed fire and thinning treatments, restoration of the
frequency and spatial extent of such disturbances as regeneration
treatments, and implementation of prescribed natural fire management
plans where feasible. We consider use of such treatments to be
compatible with the ecosystem management of habitat mosaics and the
best way to reduce the threats of catastrophic wildfire to Jemez
Mountains salamander and provide protection for the species. In
addition, listing the Jemez Mountains salamander does not preclude
adaptive management or the incorporation of new information on the
interaction between natural disturbance events and forest ecology. We
continue to support sound ecosystem management and the maintenance of
biodiversity, and we will fully support land management agencies in
addressing the management of fire to protect and enhance natural
resources under their stewardship.
(21) Comment: The Service should partner with ongoing efforts, such
as the Southwest Jemez Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration
Project, to effectively improve the watershed health of the Jemez
Mountains, thus benefiting the salamander.
Our Response: The Service recognizes the importance of forming and
supporting partnerships to achieve mutually identified goals and
objectives, and agrees that strong partnerships and collaborations are
necessary for the restoration and conservation of our natural
resources. We appreciate the ongoing efforts and collaborations with
our existing partners, including members of the Southwest Jemez
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project, encourage our
partners to work with us to incorporate specific goals and objectives
for the protection of the Jemez Mountains salamander and its habitat,
and commit to long-term monitoring, without which it is difficult to
evaluate the effectiveness of conservation measures intended to benefit
salamander. We also look forward to the establishment of new
partnerships to improve conservation.
(22) Comment: The Service should withdraw its proposal to list the
Jemez Mountains salamander as an endangered species, because critical
watershed restoration efforts would continue and these efforts could
continue without the burdensome regulations associated with the Act.
Our Response: Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations
(50 CFR 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may
be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or
more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A)
The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of
its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may
be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. The purpose of the Act is to protect and recover imperiled
species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The regulatory
requirements under the Act were determined by Congress to ensure that
otherwise lawful actions that affect species listed under the Act are
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of those listed
species. The Service will work with Federal agencies during
consultation, when required, to develop watershed restoration efforts.
The Service can provide technical assistance to non-Federal projects to
develop best management practices or alternatives.
Comments From the Santa Clara Pueblo
(23) Comment: Santa Clara Pueblo is very interested in restoring,
promoting, and sustaining healthy forest lands, which will benefit the
Jemez Mountains salamander.
Our Response: The Service appreciates comments received from Santa
Clara Pueblo, welcomes continued input on all aspects of restoring,
promoting, and sustaining healthy forest lands in the Jemez Mountains,
and will continue to be available to provide technical assistance as
may be requested by the tribe.
(24) Comment: Santa Clara Pueblo stated that salvage logging after
wildfire can help alleviate soils repelling water through disturbance
of the soils resulting from pulling the salvage logs to a landing area,
and the Service
[[Page 55609]]
should be careful not to draw the wrong conclusion about the threats
posed by salvage logging. Guidelines could be developed for managing
coarse woody debris following wildfire that include some salvage
logging that would also benefit the salamander.
Our Response: See our response to Comment 6 under Comments from
Peer Reviewers, above.
(25) Comment: Santa Clara Pueblo commented that responsible timber
harvesting can increase available soil moisture because transpiration
of vegetation (the process by which plants release moisture into the
air) is decreased and more soil moisture becomes available for residual
plant growth (and the salamander). Although it is true that reduced
shading could increase surface temperatures, that would have little
effect at the root level or below where the salamander primarily
resides.
Our Response: In the ``Forest Composition and Structure
Conversions'' section of this final rule, the Service has clarified how
the changes in forest composition and structure impacts the salamander
in its habitat.
Public Comments
(26) Comment: A public commenter stated that, before the proposed
rule is made final, agencies should jointly review the Memorandum of
Agreement to determine whether it can be updated or revised in a way
that would continue to protect the salamander without allowing it to be
listed.
Our Response: It is unclear to what Memorandum of Agreement the
commenter is referring. We are assuming the commenter is referring to
the New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team Cooperative Management Plan. See
our response to Comment 11 under Comments From the U.S. Forest Service.
(27) Comment: Another commenter could not determine from the text
if different logging practices were distinguished, and believe that
clear-cut logging would be detrimental to the salamander and its
habitat, but that other commercial logging could be conducted in a way
that is not. The threat from logging probably is real, but comes from
the disruption of the vertical underground passages more than from tree
removal. The logging threat is minimal, because industry barely exists
in the area.
Our Response: As stated in our proposed rule and this final rule,
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). Significant
differences in habitat features (soil pH, litter depth, and log size)
were reported between the logged and unlogged sites (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). The best available scientific and commercial
data does not indicate that there is an impact to vertical underground
passages.
(28) Comment: A public commenter stated that the scientific record
accumulated to date is not sufficiently robust to warrant further
regulatory action. Additional data should be collected before listing
the species as endangered. The Service should withdraw the proposal to
list the Jemez Mountains salamander as endangered because of lack of
sound scientific evidence. The proposed rule is flawed because it
relies too much on speculation and assumption rather than the best
scientific information available as required.
Our Response: See our response to Comment 9 under Comments From
U.S. Forest Service, above.
(29) Comment: Listing the Jemez Mountains salamander may have the
unintended consequences of undermining efforts to reduce the identified
principal threat to the salamander, the risk of catastrophic wildfire.
Listing the Jemez Mountains salamander as an endangered species may
further slow efforts of the Southwest Jemez Mountains Collaborative
Forest Landscape Restoration project because of the additional
regulatory requirement for section 7 consultation.
Our Response: Listing of the Jemez Mountains salamander does not
preclude the proactive treatments necessary to reduce the risk of
catastrophic fire or managing forests to restore them to old growth
conditions. We recognize that vegetative structural and landscape
changes may require proactive management to restore an appropriate
distribution of age classes, control regeneration densities, and
reintroduce some measure of natural disturbance processes such as fire
events, and will need adaptive management and the incorporation of new
information as it becomes available. We continue to support sound
ecosystem management, and we will fully support land management
agencies in addressing the management of fire to protect and enhance
natural resources under their stewardship. We recognize the importance
of implementing restoration projects such as the Southwest Jemez
Mountains Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration project. We do not
anticipate significant delays resulting from consultation, as there is
overlap between salamander habitat and Mexican spotted owl habitat,
which will also require consultation under section 7. Nonetheless, we
will work to minimize any potential additional delays that may result
from the requirement for consultation under section 7.
(30) Comment: No evidence is presented that time above ground is
necessary for the salamander life cycle. Fallen logs are considered
important in the rule; however, fallen logs only seem to be convenient
places searched by the biologists when looking for the salamander
rather than places important to the salamander's life cycle.
Our Response: Aboveground surface activity during wet surface
conditions is a documented characteristic of the natural history of the
Jemez Mountains salamander. Also, because stomach contents consist
primarily of aboveground, ground-dwelling invertebrates, and
plethodontid salamanders store fat reserves in their tails for
energetic use when foraging opportunities are reduced or do not exist
(e.g., underground), we conclude that aboveground activity is important
for feeding. Additionally, based on reproductive studies (see Biology
section of this rule), this species mates in July and August, which
coincides with the salamander's aboveground activity period. We,
therefore, conclude that time aboveground is necessary for foraging and
mating. Cover objects, including logs, are used by salamanders when
aboveground. As explained in the proposed and final rules, these cover
objects provide shelter and high moisture retreats while salamanders
are aboveground and are necessary for hydration, because overall
surface activity usually dehydrates animals. In addition, fallen logs
may be relatively more important to the species than rocks because they
are able to hold moisture for longer periods, and can be a buffer to
the increased temperatures resulting from habitat alterations or
climate change.
(31) Comment: Thinning to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire
could impact the vertical underground passages through use of
machinery. Forest restoration treatments that minimize impacts and
maximize benefits to the salamander need to be tested. The Service's
call for research
[[Page 55610]]
into thinning techniques and their effects on the salamander is
strongly endorsed.
Our Response: We agree that methods for forest restoration
treatments that have the potential to significantly affect the
salamander and its habitat should be tested to identify options that
could minimize impacts and maximize benefits to the salamander. The
Service is collaborating with the USFS, The Nature Conservancy, NMDGF,
and others on a project to measure effects of prescribed fire to large
downed log habitat components. We believe collaborations such as this
will provide information on maintaining important salamander habitat
features while conducting forest restoration.
Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule
During the open comment periods, we were asked to add information
to provide clarifications in some areas. We added clarifying language
regarding our understanding of habitat variables including subsurface
rock and geology; hillshading; canopy closure as it relates to
microclimates; population connectivity; the disease Ranavirus; the
current Forest Planning Rule; and timber harvest and soil moisture
relationships. Some information we had not previously considered was
provided by the USFS. This additional information did not alter our
threats assessment.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its
habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued existence. Listing actions may
be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in
combination. 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
(hundreds of acres instead of thousands of acres), 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 (a couple of hundred acres compared to several
hundreds or thousands of acres). 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
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 (USFS
2009a, 2009b).
In recent years, prescribed fire at Valles Caldera National
Preserve 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 of concern for severe wildland fires to occur (Parmenter
2009, cited in Service 2010). The planned Scooter Peak prescribed burn
between the Valles Caldera National Preserve and Bandelier National
Monument is a fuel-reduction project in occupied salamander habitat,
but is small in scale (approximately 960 ac (390 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
[[Page 55611]]
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. In the eastern portion
of the salamander's range, the Thompson Ridge Fire burned a total of
23,965 ac (9,698 ha) in 2013. This demonstrates that the majority of
salamander habitat has either recently burned with uncharacteristic
wildfire or 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). The canyon topography in the western portion of the
salamander's range 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 burning
the remaining forested mosaic areas and dead trees left after the Cerro
Grande Fire.
Increases in soil and microhabitat (immediate localized environment
that has a unique set of ecological conditions within a larger habitat)
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.
As discussed in the Biology section above, soil pH may affect
salamanders. Severe wildland fires typically increase soil pH, which
could affect the salamander. Changes in soil pH following wildfire
could impact the salamander, either by making the habitat less
suitable, or through physiological stress. The existing risk of
wildfire on the Valles Caldera National Preserve and surrounding areas,
including the Santa Fe National Forest, is uncharacteristically high
and is a significant departure from historical conditions over 100
years ago (Valles Caldera National Preserve 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, Pub. L. 106-393). The subsequent Omnibus Public
Land Management Act, also called the ``Forest Landscape Restoration
Act'' (Title IV, Pub. L. III-II, 2009), established a national program
that encourages ecological, economic, and social sustainability and
utilization of forest restoration byproducts to benefit local rural
economies and improve forest health. As a result, the Santa Fe National
Forest 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 the next decade or more. 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 Valles Caldera National
Preserve, 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, and
reduced soil porosity. It also results in short-term creation of
hydrophobic (water-repelling) soils because the burning of the leaf
litter, the intensity and speed of the fire and the soil type affect
the ability of soils to absorb water. 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., movement to water balance, foraging, and
mating) and physiology (e.g., increased dehydration, heart rate and
oxygen consumption, and increased
[[Page 55612]]
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 directly kills salamanders or otherwise harms living salamanders by
affecting 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 the 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 exacerbate severe
wildland fires and are, therefore, considered an interrelated threat to
the salamander. In addition, changes in forest composition and
structure may threaten the salamander by directly altering microhabitat
conditions such as soil moisture, soil temperature, soil pH, relative
humidity, and air temperature. In an area nearby to salamander habitat,
but in pi[ntilde]on-juniper woodland (Pinus edulis and Juniperus
monosperma) at 7,021 ft (2,140 m) elevation in the Jemez Mountains,
soil moisture conditions can vary spatially between the ground under
tree canopy and the ground without tree canopy resulting from the
interrelated processes among soil evaporation, leaf interception,
runoff generation and redistribution, and plant water use (Breshears et
al. 1998, p. 1015). Relative to the ground without tree canopy, the
ground beneath the canopy receives reduced precipitation input due to
the interception of the precipitation from leaves. This also influences
soil evaporation rates (Breshears et al. 1998, p. 1010). In a study
measuring spatial variations in soil evaporation caused by tree shading
for a water-limited pine forest in Israel, the authors report that the
spatial variability in soil evaporation correlated with solar
radiation, which was up to 92 percent higher in exposed compared to
shaded sites, and with water content, which was higher in exposed areas
during the wetting season, but higher in the shaded areas during the
drying season (Raz-Yaseef and Yakir 2010, p. 454). The specific results
of this study are not applicable to the Jemez Mountains, but generally
support the findings of Breshears et al. (entire) and highlight the
importance of the correlated factor of seasonality to all processes.
Without specific studies measuring these processes in salamander
habitat, we are not able to determine how the changes in vegetation
composition and structure may have altered soil moisture, evaporation,
and temperature processes, but we do understand that vegetation
structure can directly influence hydrological processes that are
correlated to solar radiation, precipitation, and seasonality, as well
as other abiotic factors, such as soil type, slope, and topography.
Furthermore, these complex interactions should be considered when
forest restoration treatments that alter canopy cover are conducted in
salamander habitat.
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 (e.g., pine needles are
acidic, decomposed pine needles can increase the soils acidity), 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). Forest die-offs from disease or insect infestation would
have similar effects to the salamander by reducing canopy closure and
warming and drying the habitat. We find that the interrelated
contributions from changes in vegetation due 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.
Data collected from the Valles Caldera National Preserve 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 Valles Caldera National Preserve,
95 percent of coniferous forests have thick tree canopy cover with
heavy understory fuels (Valles Caldera National Preserve 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 tree
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 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
[[Page 55613]]
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 (process that broadcasts a slurry of water and mulch
over an area) (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 Native American 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 are categorized as ``Essential'' according to the Jemez
Mountains Salamander Management Plan or categorized as ``Occupied
Stands'' of Jemez Mountains salamanders by the USFS were limited to
small-scale areas and included an estimated 4.3 ac (1.7 ha) of habitat
being impacted for road protections, 7.5 ac (3.0 ha) that were seeded
and mulched (for archeological site protection and Nordic ski trail
protection), 150 ac (60.7) 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 that 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
Specialist Report 2011, p. 3). We believe these actions would benefit
the salamander immediately post-fire, but neither of these actions have
been implemented or tested. Still, some post-fire treatments (e.g.,
grass seeding, heavy equipment operation, bulldozing, tilling,
hydromulching (process that broadcasts a slurry of water and mulch with
seed and fertilizer over an area), 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 this practice 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, other
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
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. Other
fire practices, such as broadcast
[[Page 55614]]
burning (i.e., conducting prescribed fires over large areas), consume
ground litter (leaves, dead plants, etc.) 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, the
indirect impacts of altering the time of year when fire is present on
the landscape on the salamander and its habitat are unknown.
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 toward 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 firebreaks 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 the 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. Dropping surface water into terrestrial habitat
significantly increases the 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).
Additionally, tree-felling or use of heavy equipment has the potential
to disturb the substrate, resulting in destabilization of rocky slopes
and compaction of soil, which may reduce subterranean interstices
(spaces) used by salamanders for refuges or movement.
Activities that compact soil, alter ecological interactions at the
soil surface, remove excessive canopy cover, or are conducted while
salamanders are aboveground 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
[[Page 55615]]
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. 3,104). 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 aboveground 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 habitat or makes it unusable to
the salamander. Finally, if salamanders are active above ground, any of
these activities could crush any 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 do not have information
indicating that mechanical treatments pose a threat to the salamander.
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 Valles Caldera National Preserve (ENTRIX 2009, p. 164).
These timber activities resulted in about 50 percent of Valles Caldera
National Preserve 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 Valles
Caldera National Preserve, 95 percent of forest stands contain dense
thickets of small-diameter trees, creating a multi-tiered forest
structure (Valles Caldera National Preserve 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 Valles Caldera National Preserve contain very few late-stage mature
trees greater than 16 in (41 cm) dbh (less than 10 percent of the
overall cover) (Valles Caldera National Preserve 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 (Valles Caldera
National Preserve 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
pre-clearcut 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
logs without salamanders, and most salamanders were found in well-
decomposed logs. In a similar plethodontid salamander, downed logs
provide refuge from warmer temperatures and resiliency from impacts
that can warm and dry habitat (Kluber et al. 2009, p. 31). In summary,
areas where large-diameter trees have been removed have less high-
quality salamander habitat features and no material for future high-
quality salamander habitat features.
On the Valles Caldera National Preserve, 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
[[Page 55616]]
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 (see
Roads, Trails, and Habitat Fragmentation below) 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 the New Mexico Endemic
Salamander Team in an effort to minimize impacts to the Jemez Mountains
salamander from salvage logging; however, the New Mexico Endemic
Salamander Team 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 (New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team
2003, p. 1).
The mitigation measures would likely benefit the salamander in the
short term if conducted without salvage logging, or possibly with some
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 if the needs of the salamander are not considered and
provided for during salvage logging actions in salamander habitat, then
salvage logging would further diminish 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.
Similarly, some fuels treatment actions, such as thinning in areas
around at-risk human communities could be conducted in a manner that
would pose no threat to the salamander. For example, Clayton et al.
(2009, entire) provides specific guidelines on fuels treatments to
manage for the persistence and protection on the Siskiyou Mountains
salamander that include maintaining certain habitat features and
address specific activity mitigations. We anticipate implementation of
similar guidelines for the Jemez Mountains salamander will alleviate
any potential threat from fuels treatment action around at-risk
communities.
In summary of forest silvicultural practices, impacts from past
commercial clear-cut 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 clear-cutting 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
[[Page 55617]]
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; New Mexico Endemic
Salamander Team 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 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
the final critical habitat determination to be published soon in the
Federal Register, 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
Valles Caldera National Preserve 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 Valles Caldera National Preserve, 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 National Preserve 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 Valles Caldera National Preserve 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 mi\2\ (2.6 km\2\) in
1935, to 2.8 mi (4.5 km) of road per mi\2\ (2.6 km\2\) 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 Valles
Caldera National Preserve may exceed the effects of the timber harvests
for which the roads were constructed (Balmat and Kupfer 2004, p. 46).
The majority of
[[Page 55618]]
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 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 habitats 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 New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 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 (70 FR 68264), 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. 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
(New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 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
[[Page 55619]]
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 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 ac (23,330 ha) and is
managed by the USFS for the promotion of fishing, camping, rock
climbing, hunting, and hiking. 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 mi\2\
(2.6 km\2\) 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 Valles Caldera National Preserve is between
250,000 and 400,000 visits per year (ENTRIX 2009, p. 93). Of this
projection, the Valles Caldera National Preserve 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 Valles Caldera National Preserve
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 Valles Caldera National
Preserve, 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 or 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 (New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 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,
demand for recreational opportunities in the Jemez Mountains will
likely increase. Individually, recreational activities that are small
in scale, such as hunting, hiking, fishing, or dispersed camping are
not considered as threats; however, the additive nature of recreational
activities that include or contribute to activities that are larger in
scale, such as off-road use and ski area expansions, are considered a
threat to the species. 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 Valles Caldera
National Preserve 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.
Conservation Plans Designed To Protect Salamander Habitat
The New Mexico Endemic Salamander Cooperative Management Plan and
Conservation Agreement were completed in 2000 (see Previous Federal
Actions section in the proposed listing rule for the Jemez Mountains
salamander (77 FR 56482; September 12, 2012). These are nonregulatory
documents and were intended to be a mechanism to provide for
conservation and protection and preclude listing the Jemez Mountains
salamander under the Endangered Species Act, as amended,
[[Page 55620]]
(U.S. General Accounting Office 1993, p. 9). The goal of these
documents was to ``. . . provide guidance for the conservation and
management of sufficient habitat to maintain viable populations of the
species'' (New Mexico Endemic Salamander 2000, p. i.). The intent of
the agreement was to protect the salamander and its habitat on lands
administered by the USFS; 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. The Conservation
Agreement and the Cooperative Management Plan do not meet the criteria
of the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts policy because the
Cooperative Management Plan covers only a portion of the range of the
salamander, the Agreement is expired, and the Cooperative Management
Plan lacks specificity for conservation actions, and lacks certainty
that conservation measures will be implemented or effective.
Nonetheless, the New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team continues to
meet to discuss management actions in salamander habitat, mitigation
recommendations for actions occurring in salamander habitat, and
research needs. Inadequate personnel and financial resources appear to
be the greatest limiting factor in salamander conservation efforts.
Also, Los Alamos National Laboratory has a Best Management
Practices document whereby they have 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).
Summary
In summary of Factor A, the Jemez Mountains 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. While conservation plans and
agreements have the goal of conserving and managing the salamander,
these efforts have been ineffective in preventing ongoing loss and they
are not sufficient to ameliorate or remove this threat. 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 do 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'' in
the southern portion of the salamanders range) was described as having
an ``abundant salamander population'' (Reagan 1967, p. 8). The species
was originally described using specimens collected from this
population, which is located in 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 were reported from the ``Type Locality'' (Painter 1999, p.
1) and 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 over 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
[[Page 55621]]
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.
Ranavirus is another emerging infectious disease of potential
concern for the Jemez Mountains salamander. Pathogens belonging to the
genus Ranavirus are multi-host (Schock et al. 2008, p. 133) and in
conjunction with Bd are considered the two dominant disease factors in
global amphibian declines (Muths et al. 2012, p. 2). Like Bd,
ranaviruses are effectively transmitted in water, and infection and
disease varies among host species and developmental stages, ranavirus
isolate types, co-evolution factors, and environmental factors (Miller
et al. 2011, p. 2351). In a targeted study in Great Smokey Mountains
National Park, Tennessee, the prevalence of Ranavirus in lungless
salamanders of the family Plethodontidae was assessed. Ranavirus was
found in all 10 species tested, including one species of Plethodon.
While the Jemez Mountains salamander has not been tested for the
presence of Ranavirus, and the pathogenicity of ranaviruses to
plethodontid salamanders remains unknown (Gray et al. 2009, p. 318),
this pathogen may pose a threat to the Jemez Mountains salamander.
Similar to Bd, however, is a lack of sufficient sampling to definitely
conclude that Ranavirus is a threat; additional sampling and studies
are needed. Finally, because both Bd and Ranavirus have the potential
to be significant threats to the salamander, biosecurity measures
should be strictly followed by field personnel to prevent transmission
of the pathogens among populations.
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)
(Painter et al. 1999, p. 48), shrews (Soricidae), skunks (Mephitidae),
black 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
[[Page 55622]]
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.
However, in practice, the provisions of these statutes that require
consideration of rare species have not been able to address the threats
to the Jemez Mountains salamander.
The Jemez Mountains salamander has been on the Regional Forester's
Sensitive Species List since 1990 (USFS 1990, 1999, p. 14; 2007, p. 1),
the same time period when the species was being reviewed for listing
under the Act, as amended (See Previous Federal Actions above). 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;
however, all new plans and plan revisions must conform to the new 2012
planning requirements (68 FR 21162; April 9, 2012). As Forest Plans are
revised under this new planning requirement, National Forests will
develop coarse-filter plan components, and fine-filter plan components
where necessary, to contribute to the recovery of listed species and
conserve proposed and candidate species (68 FR 21162; April 9, 2012).
National Forests will also provide the desired ecological conditions
necessary to maintain viable populations of species of conservation
concern within the plan area, or to contribute to maintaining a viable
population of a species of conservation concern across its range where
it is not within the USFS's authority or is beyond the inherent
capability of the plan area (68 FR 21162; April 9, 2012). We do not
have a schedule for the Forest Plan revisions on the Santa Fe National
Forest. As the Forest Plan is revised, it is unclear whether the 2012
planning requirements will provide adequate protection of the
salamander on National Forest System lands. In the interim, the Forest
Plans will continue to operate under the 1982 planning rule. 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 the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act provides
some protections for the Jemez Mountains 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
The salamander has the potential to be impacted by chemical use.
Chemicals are used to suppress wildfire and for noxious weed control.
Because the salamander has permeable skin, and respiration occurs
through the skin and physiological functions are carried out with its
skin, it may be susceptible if it comes in contact with fire retardants
or herbicides. Chemicals may impact individual salamanders and their
habitat, but based the best available scientific and commercial data
does not indicate that it is a threat to the species as a whole. 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.
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), but its impacts on
terrestrial salamanders is not known. 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 began
phasing out the use of ammonium sulfate because of its toxicity to fish
and replacing it with ammonium phosphate (USFS 2009e, p. 1), which may
have adverse effects to the salamander. We do not have any scientific
reports indicating whether the chemicals currently used in fire
retardants or foams adversely impact terrestrial salamanders, but it is
possible.
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
[[Page 55623]]
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 roadside 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.
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 average 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 (International Panel on Climate Change
2007, p. 78). The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in
the average 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 (International Panel on Climate
Change 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) (International Panel on Climate Change 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 the 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 (2007b, p.
887). Most models project a widespread decrease in snow depth in the
Rocky Mountains and earlier snowmelt (International Panel on Climate
Change 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-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 International Panel on Climate Change (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 two decades, a warming of about 0.4 degrees
Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (0.2 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) (per decade is
projected (International Panel on Climate Change 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 the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the International
[[Page 55624]]
Panel on Climate Change 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 average
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 runoff 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 International Panel on Climate Change
(2007a, p. 5) has concluded that the summer season will experience the
greatest increase in warming in the Southwest (International Panel on
Climate Change 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.
Determination
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 (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) Overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
Disease or predation; (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of
the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
We 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 gas exchange and respiration, it must stay moist at all
times or it will die. Salamanders have little control in maintaining
water balance except through physically 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. These life-history traits make hydration maintenance the
most important activity of the salamander life functions. Therefore,
any action or factor that warms and dries its habitat adversely affects
the Jemez Mountains 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 Jemez Mountains salamanders now and
in the future. For other related plethodontid salamanders, 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).
Finally, this species has a restricted range within one small
mountain range in northern New Mexico, with no movement or expansion
potential to other areas outside of its current range. This species is
not able to tolerate the hot dry conditions at lower elevations that
completely surround the Jemez Mountains and occupies habitat to the
highest elevations in this mountain range. Within its occupied habitat
where habitat features are continuous, Jemez Mountains salamander
observations are often isolated. Within the restricted habitat of the
Jemez Mountains, this species likely makes only very small movements.
We are aware of only three populations, the two in Valles Caldera
National Preserve mentioned earlier and one in Alamo Canyon, that have
higher relative densities compared to all other known Jemez Mountains
salamander occurrences (and even these areas are not considered as
densely populated as reported from the 1970's). Combined, this
information suggests recolonization or expansion opportunities,
particularly after habitat alteration, and genetic exchange among
populations may be limited.
On the basis of this information, we find that the threats to the
Jemez Mountains salamander most significantly result from habitat loss,
habitat degradation, and habitat 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
[[Page 55625]]
change are a direct threat to the Jemez Mountains salamander. 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, exacerbated by climate change, could threaten the viability
of the species over its entire range.
The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.'' We evaluated whether the Jemez
Mountains salamander is in danger of extinction now (i.e., an
endangered species) or is likely to become in danger of extinction in
the foreseeable future (i.e., a threatened species). The foreseeable
future refers to the extent to which the Secretary can reasonably rely
on predictions about the future in making determinations about the
future conservation status of the species. A key statutory difference
between a threatened species and an endangered species is the timing of
when a species may be in danger of extinction (i.e., currently at a
high risk of extinction), either now (endangered species) or in the
foreseeable future (threatened species). A species that is in danger of
extinction at some point beyond the foreseeable future does not meet
the definition of either an endangered species or a threatened species.
Because of the fact-specific nature of listing determinations,
there is no single metric for determining if a species is ``in danger
of extinction'' now. In the case of the Jemez Mountains salamander, the
best available information indicates that a major range reduction has
not happened. However large-scale habitat destruction or modification
within the highly restricted habitat for the salamander has
significantly affected the behavior and physiology of the species
(including increased oxygen use, increased metabolism, increased
desiccation, increased need to hydrate, and reduced opportunities to
forage and mate) and has likely resulted in reductions in populations
and in total numbers of individuals within its range. These losses are
ongoing as habitat conditions necessary for Jemez Mountains salamander
survival continue to deteriorate by become warmer and drier. Without
substantial conservation efforts, this trend of habitat and population
loss is expected to continue and result in an elevated risk of
extinction of the species.
Many of the threats faced by the species would not have
historically been significant (such as wildfire), but because the
entire ecological system in which this species occurs has been
significantly altered, and many of the threats are interrelated, when
wildfire occurs, it leaves behind a landscape-sized scar of highly
modified, possibly unusable habitat for the Jemez Mountains salamander.
The Jemez Mountains salamander completely relies on its environment and
habitat to maintain physiological functions and to stay alive. All
habitat for the Jemez Mountains salamander has been modified to its
existing condition, and either has been burned with large-scale high-
severity wildfire or is at risk of doing so. Effects from climate
change are also resulting in warming and drying of all Jemez Mountains
salamander habitat. Because Jemez Mountains salamanders are reliant on
their habitat for survival, and all habitat is currently warming,
drying, and either at risk of burning in wildfire, or has burned in
wildfire, all extant Jemez Mountains salamanders are vulnerable. Since,
part of the life-history requirements (including mating, foraging, and
dispersal) necessitate the use of above ground habitat and the above
ground habitat is impacted by one or more threats, no resilient
populations currently exist to support persistence of the Jemez
Mountains salamander. Consequently, it is in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range now, and appropriately meets the definition
of an endangered species (i.e., in danger of extinction).
In conclusion, after a review of the best available scientific and
commercial information as it relates to the status of the species and
the five listing factors, we find that the Jemez Mountains salamander
is presently in danger of extinction now based on the severity of
threats currently impacting the salamander. The threats are both
current and expected to continue in the future, and are significant in
that they limit all behavioral and physiological functions, including
breathing, feeding, and reproduction and reproductive success, and
extend across the entire range of the species. This meets the
definition of endangered. Therefore, on the basis of the best available
scientific and commercial information, we are 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 is highly
restricted in its range, and the threats to its survival occur
throughout its range and are not restricted to any particular
significant portion of their range. The salamander is in danger of
extinction now, and thus meets the definition of endangered, and not
threatened. Accordingly, our assessment and 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 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 and preparation of a draft and final
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address
continuing or new threats to
[[Page 55626]]
the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The
recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that set a
trigger for review of the five factors that control whether a species
remains endangered or 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 (composed of
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.
Once 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 non-governmental 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 or 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.
Please let us know if you are interested in participating in
recovery efforts for the Jemez Mountains salamander. 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, 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), Valles Caldera National Preserve, 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
17.62 for endangered plants, and at 17.72 for threatened plants. 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.
Required Determinations
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or
threatened species 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).
Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the
Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff from members of
the New
[[Page 55627]]
Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless
otherwise noted.
0
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 819 NA NA
neomexicanus.
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: August 26, 2013.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-21583 Filed 9-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P