3096 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF81

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Emergency Rule To List

the Santa Barbara County Distinct

Population of the California Tiger

Salamander as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Emergency rule.

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service), exercise our authority

to emergency list the Santa Barbara

County Distinct Vertebrate Population

Segment (DPS) of California tiger

salamander (Ambystoma californiense),

as endangered under the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).

Of 14 documented breeding sites and

associated uplands, half have been

destroyed or have suffered severe

degradation in the last 18 months. Plans

to convert additional sites from grazing

to intensive agriculture are being

developed and implemented. Because

these losses and planned conversions

constitute an emergency posing a

significant and imminent risk to the

well-being of the Santa Barbara County

DPS of the California tiger salamander,

we find that emergency listing is

necessary. This emergency rule provides

Federal protection pursuant to the Act

for a period of 240 days. A proposed

rule to list the Santa Barbara County

DPS of the California tiger salamander is

published concurrently with this

emergency rule, in this same issue of the

Federal Register in the proposed rule

section.

DATES: This emergency rule becomes

effective January 19, 2000 and expires

September 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this

rule is available for inspection, by

appointment, during normal business

hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife

Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B,

Ventura, California, 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Grace McLaughlin or Carl Benz, Ventura

Fish and Wildlife Office, at the address

listed above (telephone: 805/644-1766;

facsimile: 805/644–3958).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The California tiger salamander was

first described as a distinct species,

Ambystoma californiense, by Gray in

1853 from specimens collected in

Monterey (Grinnell and Camp 1917).

Storer (1925) and Bishop (1943)

likewise considered the California tiger

salamander as a distinct species.

However, Dunn (1940), Gehlbach

(1967), and Frost (1985) considered the

California tiger salamander a subspecies

(Ambystoma tigrinum californiense)

that belonged within the A. tigrinum

complex. Based on recent

morphological and genetic work,

geographic isolation, and ecological

differences among the members of the

A. tigrinum complex, the California tiger

salamander is considered to be a

distinct species (Shaffer and Stanley

1991; Jones 1993; Shaffer and McKnight

1996; Irschick and Shaffer 1997). The

California tiger salamander was

recognized as a distinct species in the

November 21, 1991, Animal Notice of

Review (56 FR 58804).

The California tiger salamander is a

large, stocky, terrestrial salamander with

a broad, rounded snout. Adults may

reach a total length of 207 millimeters

(mm) (8.2 inches (in)), with males

generally averaging about 200 mm (8 in)

in total length and females averaging

about 170 mm (6.8 in) in total length.

For both sexes, the average snout-vent

length is approximately 90 mm (3.6 in).

The small eyes have black irises and

protrude from the head. Coloration

consists of white or pale yellow spots or

bars on a black background on the back

and sides. The belly varies from almost

uniform white or pale yellow to a

variegated pattern of white or pale

yellow and black. Males can be

distinguished from females, especially

during the breeding season, by their

swollen cloacae (a common chamber

into which the intestinal, urinary, and

reproductive canals discharge), more

developed tail fins, and larger overall

size (Stebbins 1962; Loredo and Van

Vuren 1996).

California tiger salamanders are

restricted to California, and their range

does not overlap with any other species

of tiger salamander (Stebbins 1985).

Within California, the Santa Barbara

County population is separated by the

Coast Ranges, particularly the La Panza

and Sierra Madre Ranges, and the

Carrizo Plain from the closest other

population, which extends into the

Temblor Range in eastern San Luis

Obispo and western Kern Counties

(Shaffer, et al. 1993).

The California tiger salamander

inhabited low elevation, below 300

meters (m) (1000 feet (ft)), vernal pools

and seasonal ponds and the associated

coastal scrub, grassland, and oak

savannah plant communities of the

Santa Maria, Los Alamos, and Santa Rita

Valleys in western Santa Barbara

County (Shaffer, et al. 1993; Sam Sweet,

University of California, Santa Barbara,

in litt. 1993, 1998a). Although California

tiger salamanders still exist across most

of their historic range in Santa Barbara

County, the habitat available to them

has been reduced greatly. The ponds

available to the salamanders for

breeding have been degraded and

reduced in number and the associated

upland habitats inhabited by

salamanders for most of their life cycle

have been degraded and reduced in area

through changes in agriculture

practices, urbanization, building of

roads and highways, chemical

applications, and overgrazing (Gira et al.

1999; S. Sweet, in litt. 1993, 1998a,b).

Subadult and adult California tiger

salamanders spend much of their lives

in small mammal burrows found in the

upland component of their habitat,

particularly those of ground squirrels

and pocket gophers (Loredo and Van

Vuren 1996, Trenham 1998a). During

estivation (a state of dormancy or

inactivity in response to hot, dry

weather), California tiger salamanders

eat very little (Shaffer, et al. 1993). Once

fall and winter rains begin, they emerge

from these retreats on nights of high

relative humidity and during rains to

feed and to migrate to the breeding

ponds (Stebbins 1985, 1989; Shaffer, et

al. 1993). The salamanders breeding in

and living around a pool or seasonal

ponds, constitute a local subpopulation.

The rate of natural movement of

salamanders among subpopulations

depends on the distance between the

ponds or complexes and on the

intervening habitat (e.g., salamanders

may move more quickly through

sparsely covered and more open

grassland versus more densely vegetated

scrublands).

Adults may migrate up to 2 kilometers

(km) (1.2 miles (mi)) from summering to

breeding sites. The distance from

breeding sites may depend on local

topography and vegetation, the

distribution of ground squirrel or other

rodent burrows, and climatic conditions

(Stebbins 1989, Hunt 1998). In Santa

Barbara County, juvenile California tiger

salamanders have been trapped over 360

m (1,200 ft) while dispersing from their

natal (birth) pond (Ted Mullen, Science

Applications International Corporation

(SAIC), personal communication, 1998),

and adults have been found along roads

over 2 km (1.2 mi) from breeding ponds

(S. Sweet, in litt. 1998a). Migration is

concentrated during a few rainy nights

early in the winter, with males

migrating before females (Twitty 1941;

Shaffer, et al. 1993; Loredo and Van

Vuren 1996; Trenham 1998b). Males

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3097

usually remain in the ponds for an

average of about 6 to 8 weeks, while

females stay for approximately 1 to 2

weeks. In dry years, both sexes may stay

for shorter periods (Loredo and Van

Vuren 1996, Trenham 1998b). Although

most marked salamanders have been

recaptured at the pond where they were

initially captured, in one study

approximately 20 percent were

recaptured at different ponds (Trenham

1998b). As with migration distances, the

number of ponds used by an individual

over its lifetime will be dependent on

landscape features.

Female California tiger salamanders

mate and lay their eggs singly or in

small groups (Twitty 1941; Shaffer, et al.

1993). The number of eggs laid by a

single female ranges from approximately

400 to 1,300 per breeding season

(Trenham 1998b). The eggs typically are

attached to vegetation near the edge of

the breeding pond (Storer 1925, Twitty

1941), but in ponds with no or limited

vegetation, they may be attached to

objects (rocks, boards, etc.) on the

bottom (Jennings and Hayes 1994). After

breeding, adults leave the pond and

typically return to small mammal

burrows (Loredo et al. 1996; Trenham

1998a), although they may continue to

come out nightly for approximately the

next 2 weeks to feed (Shaffer, et al.

1993).

Eggs hatch in 10 to 14 days with

newly hatched larvae ranging from 11.5

to 14.2 mm (0.45 to 0.56 in) in total

length. Larvae feed on algae, small

crustaceans, and mosquito larvae for

about 6 weeks after hatching, when they

switch to larger prey (P.R. Anderson

1968). Larger larvae have been known to

consume smaller tadpoles of Pacific

treefrogs (Hyla regilla) and California

red-legged frogs (Rana aurora) as well as

many aquatic insects and other aquatic

invertebrates (J.D. Anderson 1968; P.R.

Anderson 1968). Captive salamanders

appear to locate food by vision and

olfaction (smell) (J.D. Anderson 1968).

Amphibian larvae must grow to a

critical minimum body size before they

can metamorphose (change into a

different physical form) to the terrestrial

stage (Wilbur and Collins 1973). Feaver

(1971) found that California tiger

salamander larvae metamorphosed and

left the breeding ponds 60 to 94 days

after the eggs had been laid, with larvae

developing faster in smaller, more

rapidly drying ponds. The longer the

ponding duration, the larger the larvae

and metamorphosed juveniles are able

to grow. The larger juvenile amphibians

grow, the more likely they are to survive

and reproduce (Semlitsch et al. 1988;

Morey 1998).

In the late spring or early summer,

before the ponds dry completely,

metamorphosed juveniles leave the

ponds and enter small mammal burrows

after spending up to a few days in mud

cracks or tunnels in moist soil near the

water (Zeiner et al. 1988; Shaffer, et al.

1993; Loredo et al. 1996). Like the

adults, juveniles may emerge from these

retreats to feed during nights of high

relative humidity (Storer 1925; Shaffer,

et al. 1993) before settling in their

selected estivation sites for the dry

summer months.

Many of the pools in which California

tiger salamanders lay eggs do not retain

water long enough to support successful

metamorphosis. Generally, 10 weeks is

required to allow sufficient time to

metamorphose. The larvae will

desiccate (dry out and perish) if a site

dries before larvae complete

metamorphosis (P.R. Anderson 1968,

Feaver 1971). Pechmann et al. (1989)

found a strong positive correlation with

ponding duration and total number of

metamorphosing juveniles in five

salamander species. In one study,

successful metamorphosis of California

tiger salamanders occurred only in

larger pools with longer ponding

durations (Feaver 1971), which is

typical range-wide (Jennings and Hayes

1994). Even though there is little

difference in the number of pools used

by salamanders between wet and dry

years, pool duration is the most

important factor to consider in relation

to persistence and survival (Feaver

1971; Shaffer, et al. 1993; Seymour and

Westphal 1994, 1995).

Lifetime reproductive success for

California and other tiger salamanders is

typically low, with fewer than 30

metamorphic juveniles per breeding

female. While individuals may survive

for more than 10 years, many may breed

only once, and, in some populations,

less than 5 percent of marked juveniles

survive to become breeding adults

(Trenham 1998b). With such low

recruitment, isolated subpopulations

can decline greatly from unusual,

randomly occurring natural events as

well as from human-caused factors that

reduce breeding success and individual

survival. Factors that repeatedly lower

breeding success in isolated ponds that

are too far from other ponds for

migrating individuals to replenish the

population can quickly drive a local

population to extinction.

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment

The evidence supports recognition of

Santa Barbara County California tiger

salamanders as a DPS for purposes of

listing, as defined in our February 7,

1996, Policy Regarding the Recognition

of Distinct Vertebrate Population

Segments (61 FR 4722). The definition

of ‘‘species’’ in section 3(16) of the Act

includes ‘‘any distinct population

segment of any species of vertebrate fish

or wildlife which interbreeds when

mature.’’ When listing a population

under the Act as a DPS, three elements

are considered: (1) The discreteness of

the population segment in relation to

the remainder of the species to which it

belongs; (2) the significance of the

population segment to the species to

which it belongs; and (3) the population

segment’s conservation status in relation

to the Act’s standards for listing (i.e., is

the population segment, when treated as

if it were a species, endangered or

threatened?) (61 FR 4722).

The DPS of California tiger

salamanders in Santa Barbara County is

discrete in relation to the remainder of

the species as a whole. The DPS is

geographically isolated and separate

from other California tiger salamanders;

no mixing of the population with other

California tiger salamander populations

occurs. As detailed below, this finding

is supported by an evaluation of the

species’ genetic variability.

Genetic analyses of the California

tiger salamander suggest that levels of

interchange among populations are very

low, and that populations or

subpopulations are genetically isolated

from one another (Jones 1993; Shaffer, et

al. 1993). Allozyme variation (distinct

types of enzymes (proteins) in the cells,

which are formed from an individual’s

inherited genes) and mitochondrial

DNA sequence data indicate the

existence of at least seven genetically

distinct California tiger salamander

populations (Shaffer, et al. 1993).

Although the allozyme variation

reported by Shaffer, et al. (1993) is quite

low, it does indicate patterns of

geographic isolation. Probably because

of this isolation, the population in Santa

Barbara County is one of the two most

genetically distinct, and these

salamanders are more similar to

California tiger salamanders on the

eastern side of the Central Valley than

to those in the closest populations

found in the Temblor Range (Shaffer, et

al. 1993). The populations in the

Temblor Range are about 67.5 km or 44

mi by air, from the Santa Barbara

County population, while the eastern

Central Valley populations are 200 km

or 128 mi by air, across mountain

ranges, an arid plain, and the Central

Valley, all of which are inhospitable

zones for California tiger salamanders.

The Santa Barbara County population

may be a relict population of a much

more widespread group that extended

across the area where the Tehachapi and

3098 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Transverse Ranges now extend. The

uplift of those ranges changed the

terrain and the local climatic

conditions, isolating salamanders in

what is now northwestern Santa Barbara

County. The Temblor Range

salamanders appear to be a more recent

extension from the populations south of

San Francisco Bay. The sequence

divergence between the Santa Barbara

County tiger salamanders and other

samples from throughout the species’

range is on the order of 1.7 percent

(Shaffer, in litt. 1998) or 1.8 percent

(Shaffer, et. al. 1993). Shaffer’s

mitochondrial DNA sequence data

(Shaffer and McKnight 1996, and

unpublished data) suggest that the seven

distinct populations differ markedly in

their genetic characteristics, with Santa

Barbara County tiger salamanders

having gene sequences not found in any

other California tiger salamander

populations (Shaffer, in litt. 1998).

California tiger salamanders in Santa

Barbara County may have been

separated from the other populations for

about 1 to 1.5 million years (Shaffer, et

al. 1993; Shaffer and McKnight 1996; H.

Bradley Shaffer, University of

California, Davis (UCD), in litt. 1998).

Shaffer, et al. (1993) and Shaffer (in litt.

1998) suggest that differentiation at this

level is sufficient to justify species-level

recognition.

The Santa Barbara County California

tiger salamander population is

biologically and ecologically significant

to the species. As discussed above, the

Santa Barbara County population is

genetically distinct from other

populations of California tiger

salamanders, and individuals exhibit

genetic characteristics not found in

other California tiger salamanders. The

Santa Barbara County population is also

significant in that it constitutes the only

population of California tiger

salamanders west of the outer Coast

Ranges, and it is the southernmost

population of the species. The DPS

covered in this emergency rule is found

only in Santa Barbara County. The

extinction of the Santa Barbara County

California tiger salamander population

would result in the loss of a significant

genetic entity, the curtailment of the

range of the species as a whole, and the

loss of a top predator in the aquatic

systems that Santa Barbara County

California tiger salamanders inhabit.

Based on geographic isolation, the lack

of evidence of gene flow with other

populations, and marked genetic

differentiation, we conclude that the

Santa Barbara County population of

California tiger salamanders meets the

discreteness and significance criteria in

our Policy Regarding the Recognition of

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments

and qualifies as a DPS. We discuss the

Santa Barbara County population’s

conservation status below.

Status and Distribution

Currently, California tiger

salamanders in Santa Barbara County

are found in four discrete regions (S.

Sweet, in litt. 1998a). Collectively,

salamanders in these regions constitute

a single genetic population or DPS,

reproductively separate from the rest of

the California tiger salamanders (Jones

1993; Shaffer, et al. 1993; Shaffer and

McKnight 1996). Ponds and associated

uplands in southwestern (West Orcutt)

and southeastern (Bradley-Dominion)

Santa Maria Valley, Los Alamos Valley,

and Santa Rita Valley constitute the four

discrete regions or metapopulations

where California tiger salamanders now

exist in Santa Barbara County (S. Sweet,

in litt. 1998a). For the purposes of this

rule, a metapopulation is defined as a

group of subpopulations or ‘‘local

populations’’ linked by genetic

exchange. Of 14 known breeding sites or

subpopulations within this DPS, 1 was

destroyed in 1998, the upland habitat

around 3 has been converted into more

intensive agriculture practices (i.e.

vineyards, gladiolus fields, and row

crops, which may have eliminated the

salamander subpopulations), 1 is

surrounded by agriculture and urban

development, 2 are affected by

overgrazing, 4 are imminently

threatened with conversion to vineyards

or other intensive agriculture practices,

and the remaining 3 are in areas rapidly

undergoing conversion to vineyards and

row crops (Sweet, et al. 1998; Sweet, in

litt. 1998; Santa Barbara County

Planning and Development 1998; Grace

McLaughlin, Service, personal

observations, 1998). Thus, only 6 or 7 of

13 existing ponds potentially provide

breeding habitat for viable

subpopulations of Santa Barbara County

California tiger salamanders. Although

other breeding ponds could exist within

each of the four metapopulations noted

above, searches around extant localities

in the county, as well as in other areas

with suitable habitat, have not

identified additional subpopulations of

the species (Paul Collins, Santa Barbara

Museum of Natural History, in litt. 1998,

pers. comm. 1999; S. Sweet, in litt.

1998a). Four possible breeding ponds or

pond complexes (three in the BradleyDominion area, one in Santa Rita

Valley) have been identified from aerial

photography and by finding

salamanders on roads in the vicinity

(Sweet, et al. 1998) but have not been

sampled. Most of the upland habitats

around the ponds have been converted

to vineyards or row crops within the last

6 years (Santa Barbara County Planning

and Development 1998). All of the

known and potential localities of the

California tiger salamander in Santa

Barbara County are on private lands,

none are protected by conservation

easements or agreements, and access is

limited.

Previous Federal Action

On September 18, 1985, we published

the Vertebrate Notice of Review (50 FR

37958), which included the California

tiger salamander as a category 2

candidate species for possible future

listing as threatened or endangered.

Category 2 candidates were those taxa

for which information contained in our

files indicated that listing may be

appropriate but for which additional

data were needed to support a listing

proposal. The January 6, 1989, and

November 21, 1991, candidate notices of

review (54 FR 554 and 56 FR 58804,

respectively) also included the

California tiger salamander as a category

2 candidate, soliciting information on

the status of the species. On February

21, 1992, we received a petition from

Dr. H. Bradley Shaffer of the University

of California, Davis, to list the California

tiger salamander as an endangered

species. We published a 90-day petition

finding on November 19, 1992 (57 FR

54545), concluding that the petition

presented substantial information

indicating that listing may be warranted.

On April 18, 1994, we published a 12-

month petition finding (59 FR 18353)

that the listing of the California tiger

salamander was warranted but

precluded by higher priority listing

actions. We elevated the species to

category 1 status at that time, which was

reflected in the November 15, 1994,

Animal Notice of Review (59 FR 58982).

Category 1 candidates were those taxa

for which we had on file sufficient

information on biological vulnerability

and threats to support preparation of

listing proposals. In a memorandum

dated November 3, 1994, from the acting

Assistant Regional Director to the Field

Supervisor, the recycled 12-month

finding on the petition and a proposed

rule to list the species under the Act

were given a due date of December 15,

1995. However, on April 10, 1995,

Public Law 104–6 imposed a

moratorium on listings and critical

habitat designations and rescinded $1.5

million from the listing program

funding. The moratorium was lifted and

listing funding was restored through

passage of the Omnibus Budget

Reconciliation Act on April 26, 1996,

following severe funding constraints

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3099

imposed by a number of continuing

resolutions between November 1995

and April 1996. The listing of the

California tiger salamander throughout

its range was precluded by the need to

address higher priority species,

although the status of the entire species

is currently under review. The decision

to emergency list this DPS of the

California tiger salamander is based on

information contained in the original

petition, information referenced in the

petition, and new information otherwise

available to the Service.

The processing of this emergency rule

conforms with our Listing Priority

Guidance published in the Federal

Register on October 22, 1999 (64 FR

57114). The guidance clarifies the order

in which we will process rulemakings.

Highest priority is processing

emergency listing rules for any species

determined to face a significant and

imminent risk to its well-being (Priority

1). Second priority (Priority 2) is

processing final determinations on

proposed additions to the lists of

endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants. Third priority is processing new

proposals to add species to the lists. The

processing of administrative petition

findings (petitions filed under section 4

of the Act) is the fourth priority. The

processing of critical habitat

determinations (prudency and

determinability decisions) and proposed

or final designations of critical habitat

will be funded separately from other

section 4 listing actions and will no

longer be subject to prioritization under

the Listing Priority Guidance. This

emergency rule is a Priority 1 action and

is being completed in accordance with

the current Listing Priority Guidance.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

After a thorough review and

consideration of all information

available, we have determined that the

Santa Barbara County population of the

California tiger salamander warrants

classification as an endangered DPS. We

followed procedures found at section 4

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and

regulations (50 CFR part 424)

promulgated to implement the listing

provisions of the Act. We may

determine a species to be endangered or

threatened due to one or more of the

five factors described in section 4(a)(1).

These factors and their application to

the Santa Barbara County DPS of the

California tiger salamander (Ambystoma

californiense) are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

California tiger salamanders now

occur in scattered subpopulations

within four isolated areas or

metapopulations across the historic

range in Santa Barbara County. Based on

the topography and habitat type of the

lands that have been converted to

agriculture and urban development, we

conclude that the number of breeding

ponds, the extent of upland habitats,

and the quality of the remaining habitats

have been reduced greatly since

Europeans first settled the region. While

those areas remained in grazing lands or

oil production, which generally have

relatively low effects on the

subpopulations, the species was

relatively secure. However, based on

aerial photography from the 1930’s

through the 1990’s (archived at the

Santa Barbara County Department of

Planning and Development), the

conversion to intensive agriculture and

urban developments has resulted in the

loss of breeding habitat from the

destruction or alteration of natural

vernal pools and seasonal ponds, and

the loss of upland habitat used for

estivation and migration.

Pools and ponds are destroyed when

they are filled during grading and

leveling operations or deep-ripping.

Deep-ripping or deep slip plowing is a

technique that uses a 4- to 7-foot deep

plow to break up the hardpan (layer of

dense soil or material that prevents

water percolation) or compacted soil to

allow water to drain deeper into the soil

and prevents water retention or

ponding. Alternatively, seasonal ponds

may be converted to irrigation ponds,

which are often managed in ways that

are not conducive to salamander

survival (Lawrence Hunt, Biological

Consultant, in litt. 1998). The repeated

plowing and discing or deep-ripping of

upland habitats can alter the hydrology

of the pools, thus destroying them (Coe

1988), or can kill salamanders outright

and destroy the small mammal burrow

systems in which they live most of the

year.

Intensive agricultural practices began

in the Santa Maria River and San

Antonio Creek Valleys over 130 years

ago (Elihu Gevirtz, Santa Barbara

County Planning and Development,

pers. comm. 1999), probably eliminating

many breeding ponds and associated

upland habitats. The increasingly rapid

conversion of these lands and those in

the Los Alamos and Santa Rita Valleys

to intensive agricultural practices is

characterized by the increase in row

crop acreage by more than 9,900

hectares (ha) (over 25,000 acres (ac))

since 1986 and the installation of

approximately 4,000 ha (10,000 ac) of

vineyards just since 1996 (Gira et al.

1999). These conversions have resulted

in the destruction of two breeding

ponds (one suspected and one

documented) and the grading of 90 and

100 percent of their drainage basins, and

the grading of 50 to 100 percent of the

drainage basins of five documented and

two suspected breeding ponds in the

last 5 years (Santa Barbara County

Planning and Development 1998). Six of

14 documented breeding sites and

associated uplands have been destroyed

or severely affected since 1996, and

there are proposals to develop vineyards

around 4 other documented breeding

ponds, leaving only 4 of 13 remaining

pond sites relatively free from imminent

threat (Hunt 1998; G. McLaughlin, pers.

obs. 1998; Santa Barbara County

Planning and Development 1998; Sweet,

et al. 1998; Sweet, in litt. 1998). The

current and potential threats to the

remaining ponds from agriculture and

urbanization are discussed below by

region (West Orcutt, Bradley-Dominion,

Los Alamos, Santa Rita).

The known breeding sites in

southwestern Santa Maria Valley (west

of Highway 101 and Santa Maria),

comprising the West Orcutt

metapopulation, are on grazing and

other agricultural lands. Vernal pools in

the area have been lost or adversely

affected by rapid development in the

Santa Maria Valley (E. Gevirtz, pers.

comm. 1999). Thirty years ago, a

housing development directly affected

one of three documented breeding sites

in this metapopulation. The two

remaining sites are separated by a

railroad that may disrupt migration

routes and reduce genetic interchange.

These sites are also threatened by

overgrazing (G. McLaughlin, pers. obs.

1998) (see discussion on grazing in

Factors C and E, below) and potentially

threatened by urban development (S.

Sweet, in litt. 1998a; E. Gevirtz, pers.

comm. 1999).

Before 1996, the four documented and

three possible breeding sites (Sweet, et

al. 1998) in southeastern Santa Maria

Valley, which constitute the BradleyDominion metapopulation, were

surrounded by oil production and

grazing lands. Since 1996, agricultural

land conversion for vineyards, vegetable

row crops, and flowers has destroyed

one documented and one suspected

breeding site, possibly extirpated

salamanders from two other

documented sites and one possible

breeding site, and threatens the

remaining possible breeding site (S.

Sweet, in litt. 1993; 1998a,b). Although

3100 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

California tiger salamanders were found

migrating across roads in the vicinity of

the possible breeding sites throughout

the 1980’s, salamanders have not been

observed since the early 1990’s, when

the grazing lands were converted to

vineyards (S. Sweet, in litt. 1998a).

A storage facility for agricultural

products and chemicals is within the

watershed of the remaining documented

breeding site (S. Sweet, in litt. 1998a;

Theresa Stevens, Santa Barbara County

Planning and Development, pers. comm.

1999). Although precautions have been

taken to reduce the threats of runoff and

spills into the natural pond (Analise

Merlo, Santa Barbara County Planning

and Development, pers. comm. 1999)

that could eliminate or injure

salamanders during the breeding or

development seasons, the threats still

exist. A road between this pond and a

nearby pond, the watershed of which

was converted to gladiolus fields in

1998, disrupts migration between the

ponds and the uplands, has caused the

deaths of many salamanders, and

contributes to potentially lethal

contamination of the ponds (S. Sweet, in

litt. 1993, 1998a).

The Los Alamos Valley or Las Flores

metapopulation, although fragmented

by Highway 101, was considered to be

an important breeding site for the

species provided existing conditions

could be maintained (Stebbins 1989).

However, recent changes in land

ownership and management have

resulted in the conversion from grazing

lands to vineyards, east of the highway.

The direct effects of this conversion

resulted in the loss of one vernal pool

and the severe degradation of upland

habitats surrounding that pool and

another documented breeding site (Hunt

1998). On the west side of Highway 101,

habitat around four vernal pools and

seasonal ponds that are documented

breeding sites and currently grazing

lands, may be converted for intensive

agricultural practices (Santa Barbara

County Planning and Development

1998; L. Hunt, in litt. 1999; S. Sweet, in

litt. 1998a; Abe Lieder, Santa Barbara

County Planning and Development, in

litt. 1999; Morgan Wehtje, California

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG),

pers. comm. 1999).

In the Santa Rita Valley

metapopulation, one of the two sites

used by the California tiger salamander

west of Buellton has been severely

affected by agricultural grading and

conversion to row crops (S. Sweet, in

litt. 1993, 1998a,b). The other site has

two vernal pools that have been

deepened to create a permanent water

source for cattle and have had

introductions of mosquitofish

(Gambusia affinis) and sunfish (Lepomis

spp.). The pools are adjacent to

Highway 246, resulting in considerable

road mortality of salamanders during

their breeding migrations (S. Sweet, in

litt. 1993, 1998). Upland habitats around

two possible breeding ponds northeast

of the latter were deep-ripped in 1998

in preparation for conversion to

vineyards (L. Hunt, in litt. 1998; Santa

Barbara County Planning and

Development 1998). The conversion to

vineyard of these areas is in progress (G.

McLaughlin, pers. obs. 1999), and one of

the ponds has recently been enlarged

and deepened (E. Gevirtz, pers. comm.

1999; Jim Mace, U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, pers. comm. 1999). This

change may make the pond less

desirable for the California tiger

salamander and more likely to be

inhabited by exotic fish, crayfish, and

bullfrogs.

Oil production began within the range

of the salamander approximately 100

years ago, with the discovery of oil in

the Solomon Hills (within the range of

the Los Alamos tiger salamander

metapopulation). By 1910, production

had begun in the Santa Maria Valley (E.

Gevirtz, pers. comm. 1999). Although

oil production is less disruptive to the

upland habitats than agriculture, oil

sump ponds, particularly those located

where natural ponds and pools once

existed, may act as toxic sinks. While

attracting salamanders seeking breeding

sites, these ponds may contain levels of

contaminants that may kill adults, eggs,

and larvae outright, or cause deformities

in the developing larvae thus precluding

their survival (see discussion on

contaminants in Factor E of this

section). Also, the ‘‘burping’’’ (release)

of hydrogen sulfide gas by the wells can

acidify the ponds as the gas settles in

low-lying areas, reducing the survival

rates of larvae and adults (S. Sweet, in

litt. 1993).

The primary cause of the reduced

distribution of the California tiger

salamander in Santa Barbara County is

the conversion of native habitat to

intensive agricultural practices and

urban development. In addition, the

largest remaining subpopulations are in

areas most severely threatened by

human encroachment (Shaffer, et al.

1993; S. Sweet, in litt. 1993; 1998a; E.

Gevirtz, in litt. 1998). Besides direct loss

of habitat, the widespread conversion of

land to agricultural and residential uses

has led to the fragmentation of the range

of the tiger salamander and isolation of

remaining subpopulations in Santa

Barbara County (Shaffer, et al. 1993; S.

Sweet, in litt. 1993; 1998a). Even

relatively minor habitat modifications,

such as construction of roads, pipelines,

fences, and berms that traverse the area

between breeding and refuge sites, can

increase habitat fragmentation, impede

or prevent breeding migrations, and

result in direct and indirect mortality

(Mader 1984; S. Sweet, in litt. 1993,

1998; Findlay and Houlahan 1996;

Launer and Fee 1996; Gibbs 1998).

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

Although tiger salamanders have been

used for bait and imported larvae

(‘‘waterdogs’’) are still sold in

California, we have no information

about the use of California tiger

salamanders for this purpose (see

discussion under Factor E of this

section).

C. Disease or Predation

Disease

The direct effect of disease on the

Santa Barbara County population of

California tiger salamanders is not

known and the risks to the DPS have not

been determined. Because California

tiger salamanders are found in so few

sites in Santa Barbara County, and

because the sites are found across a

relatively small area, disease must be

considered a potential threat to the

persistence of the DPS. Sam Sweet

(pers. comm. 1998) reported that one

landowner in the Los Alamos Valley has

seen large numbers of dead and dying

salamanders in a pond, but the cause

was not determined. Several pathogenic

(disease-causing) agents, including at

least one bacterium (Worthylake and

Hovingh 1989), a water mold (fungus)

(Kiesecker and Blaustein 1997; Lefcort

et al. 1997), and a virus (McLean 1998),

have been associated with die-offs of

closely related tiger salamanders, as

well as other amphibian species. Each of

these pathogens could devastate one or

all of the remaining subpopulations or

metapopulations if introduced into

Santa Barbara County.

Worthylake and Hovingh (1989)

reported on repeated die-offs of tiger

salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum) in

Desolation Lake in the Wasatch

Mountains of Utah. Affected

salamanders had red, swollen hind legs

and vents, and widespread hemorrhage

of the skin and internal organs. The

researchers determined that the die-offs

were due to infection with the

bacterium Acinetobacter. The number of

bacteria in the lake increased with

increasing nitrogen levels as the lake

dried. The nitrogen was believed to

come from both atmospheric deposition

and waste from sheep grazing in the

watershed (Worthylake and Hovingh

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3101

1989). Acinetobacter spp. are common

in soil and animal feces. Overstocking of

livestock in pond watersheds could lead

to high levels of nitrogen in ponds and

contribute to increased bacterial levels.

Lefcort et al. (1997), in Georgia, found

that tiger salamanders raised in natural

and artificial ponds contaminated with

silt were susceptible to infection by the

water mold Saprolegnia parasitica. The

fungus first appeared on the feet, then

spread to the entire leg. All infected

animals died. Die-offs of western toads

(Bufo boreas), Cascades frogs (Rana

cascadae), and Pacific treefrogs (Hyla

regilla) also have been associated with

Saprolegnia infections (Kiesecker and

Blaustein 1997). Saprolegnia spp. are

widespread in natural waters and

commonly grow on dead organic

material (Wise 1995).

High nitrogen and silt levels from

overgrazing or other agricultural or

urban runoff may increase susceptibility

to disease and may interact with other

risk factors (e.g., habitat loss, introduced

species) to jeopardize the persistence of

a local population. Two of the three

ponds in the West Orcutt

metapopulation area are in severely

overgrazed grasslands and are at risk of

receiving runoff that has both high

nitrogen and high silt levels. Four ponds

in the Los Alamos metapopulation and

the two ponds in the Santa Rita

metapopulation are on grazing lands;

although the levels of grazing are not

excessive, silt and nitrogen levels must

be considered when assessing the health

of these populations. One of the ponds

in the Los Alamos Valley was the site

of a die-off of California tiger

salamanders, but the cause was

unknown (S. Sweet, pers. comm. 1998).

In addition to the Acinetobacter

discussed above, an iridovirus (viruses

with DNA as the genetic material that

occur in insects, fish, and amphibians

and may cause death, skin lesions, or no

symptoms) has been identified by the

U.S. Geological Service (USGS),

National Wildlife Health Center in

Madison, Wisconsin, as the cause of

deaths of large numbers of tiger

salamanders at Desolation Lake, Utah.

Infected salamanders moved slowly in

circles and had trouble remaining

upright. They had red spots and swollen

areas on the skin. Viruses associated

with die-offs of tiger and spotted

salamanders in two other States, Maine

and North Dakota, have been isolated

(McLean 1998). In 1995, researchers

reported similar die-offs attributed to an

iridovirus in southern Arizona and near

Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada (McLean

1998). Iridoviruses are found in both

fish and frogs and may have been

introduced to some sites through fish

stocking programs. Little is known

about the historical distribution of

iridoviruses in salamander populations.

A virus could enter California via bait

shops where eastern tiger salamanders

are legally sold in certain counties

(California Code of Regulations (CCR)

Title 14, Division 1, Subdivision 1,

Chapter 2, Article 3, Sec. 4, 1999), or

where they are illegally sold in other

areas. The virus may be carried by birds,

such as herons and egrets, that feed on

the salamanders. Such a virus could be

devastating to the Santa Barbara County

population of California tiger

salamanders.

Predation

Predation and competition by

introduced or nonnative species

potentially affect 38 percent of the

remaining 13 Santa Barbara County

California tiger salamander breeding

sites. Shaffer, et al. (1993) consider

bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana),

mosquitofish, and other introduced fish

to be biological indicators of ponds that

have been disturbed to a degree that

California tiger salamanders are

excluded. Competition is discussed

under Factor E of this section.

Bullfrogs prey on California tiger

salamander larvae (P.R. Anderson 1968).

Morey and Guinn (1992) documented a

shift in amphibian community

composition at a vernal pool complex,

with California tiger salamanders

becoming proportionally less abundant

as bullfrogs increased. Although

bullfrogs are unable to establish

permanent breeding populations in

unaltered vernal pools and seasonal

ponds, dispersing immature frogs take

up residence in vernal pools during

winter and spring (Morey and Guinn

1992) and may prey on native

amphibians, including larval California

tiger salamanders. Lawler et al. (1999)

found that less than 5 percent of

California red-legged frog tadpoles

survived to metamorphosis when raised

with bullfrog tadpoles (initially, ponds

held 720 red-legged frog tadpoles and 50

bullfrog tadpoles; approximately 50

percent of the bullfrogs successfully

metamorphosed). Due to the

documented effects of bullfrogs on other

amphibian species, we believe that they

are likely to have similar effects on

California tiger salamanders and that the

presence of bullfrogs in salamander

habitat threatens the persistence of the

salamander populations. Bullfrogs are

found within 1.6 km (1 mi) of one

vernal pool complex in Santa Barbara

County (S. Sweet, pers. comm. 1999),

posing a threat to that metapopulation.

Mosquitofish, instead of pesticides,

often are placed into ponds by vector

control agencies to eliminate

mosquitoes. Mosquitofish are used by

every vector control district in the State

and in some districts represent the

majority of their control efforts (Ken

Boyce, California Mosquito and Vector

Control Association, in litt. 1994). These

fish were first introduced to California

in 1922 and have since become wellestablished throughout the State’s water

systems (K. Boyce in litt. 1994). In

general, mosquitofish are stocked in

very small numbers because they

quickly reproduce to the maximum

population levels that a particular

habitat may sustain. Mosquitofish are

extremely tolerant of polluted water

with low levels of dissolved oxygen and

have an extremely wide range of

temperature tolerance (Boyce 1994).

Mosquitofish prey on the California

newt (Taricha torosa) (Gamradt and

Kats 1996) and Pacific treefrog (Goodsell

and Kats 1999) larvae in both field and

laboratory experiments, even given the

optional prey of mosquito larvae

(Goodsell and Kats 1999; Lee Kats,

Pepperdine University, pers. comm.

1999). Both newt and Pacific treefrog

larvae were found in stomachs of wildcaught mosquitofish (Goodsell and Kats

1999; L. Kats, pers. comm. 1999). Robert

Stebbins observed mosquitofish

ingesting and then spitting out

California newt larvae, causing severe

damage to the newts in the process (Graf

1993). Schmieder and Nauman (1993)

found that mosquitofish significantly

affected the survival of both prefeeding

and large larvae of California red-legged

frogs. Lawler et al. (1999) did not find

a reduction in survival rates of

California red-legged frog tadpoles

raised in the presence of mosquitofish

versus controls with no mosquitofish,

but those tadpoles that did survive

weighed less than control tadpoles and

metamorphosed later, and most were

injured by the fish. Smaller size at

metamorphosis may reduce survival to

breeding age and reproductive potential

Morey 1998, Semlitsch et al. 1988).

Salamanders may be especially

vulnerable to mosquitofish predation

due to their fluttering external gills,

which may attract these visual predators

(Graf 1993). Loredo-Prendeville et al.

(1994) found no California tiger

salamanders in ponds with

mosquitofish. Due to the documented

effects of mosquitofish on other

amphibian species, we believe that they

are likely to have similar effects on

California tiger salamanders and that the

use of mosquitofish in salamander

habitat threatens the persistence of the

salamander populations.

3102 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Louisiana red swamp crayfish

(Procambarus clarki) also apparently

prey on California tiger salamanders

(Shaffer, et al. 1993) and may have

eliminated some populations (Jennings

and Hayes 1994). The crayfish prey on

California newt eggs and larvae, in spite

of toxins that the species has developed,

and may be a significant factor in the

loss of newts from several streams in

southern California (Gamradt and Kats

1996). These crayfish are found in two

salamander breeding sites in Santa

Barbara County, but their effect on egg

and larval survival is unknown (S.

Sweet, pers. comm. 1999).

California tiger salamander larvae also

are preyed upon by many native

species. In healthy salamander

populations such predation is probably

not a significant threat, but when

combined with other impacts, such as

predation by nonnative species,

contaminants, or habitat alteration, it

may cause a significant decrease in

population viability. Native predators

include great blue herons (Ardea

herodias) and egrets (Casmerodius

albus), western pond turtles (Clemmys

marmorata), various garter snakes

(Thamnophis spp.), larger California

tiger salamander larvae, larger spadefoot

toad (Scaphiopus hammondii) larvae,

and California red-legged frogs (Mike

Peters, Service, in. litt. 1993; Hansen

and Tremper 1993).

D. The Inadequacy of Existing

Regulatory Mechanisms

The primary cause of the decline of

the Santa Barbara County population of

California tiger salamanders is the loss,

degradation, and fragmentation of

habitat from human activities. Federal,

State, and local laws have not been

sufficient to prevent past and ongoing

losses of California tiger salamander

habitat.

Federal

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

(CWA) authorizes the U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers (Corps) to issue individual

or general permits for the discharge of

dredged or fill material into waters of

the United States, which include

navigable waters, wetlands (e.g., vernal

pools), and other seasonal ponds

typically used by breeding salamanders.

Projects that involve only the excavation

of pools or that alter the watershed and

hydrological regime of the pool but do

not involve ‘‘discharge’’ into the pool do

not require a section 404 permit (Coe

1988). General permits include both

nationwide and regional permits and

may allow projects to proceed without

the scrutiny afforded through the

individual permitting process.

Of particular concern relative to the

persistence of California tiger

salamanders are activities conducted

under Nationwide Permit (NWP)

Number 26 (33 CFR part 330 Appendix

A), which authorizes an applicant to fill

up to 1.2 ha (3 ac) of waters and

wetlands, including vernal pools and

seasonal ponds. Filling of less than 0.13

ha (0.33 ac) of isolated waters can be

undertaken without notifying the Corps

of the proposed activity. If the activity

will affect between 0.13 and 0.4 ha (0.33

and 1 ac) of wetlands, an applicant is

required to notify the Corps, but the

Corps is not required to notify resource

agencies unless the project may affect a

listed species or designated critical

habitat. Because vernal pools are often

small and scattered across the

landscape, projects, even very large

development projects that fill hundreds

of vernal pools, can be authorized under

NWP 26. Numerous small projects in a

given area also could be authorized,

cumulatively resulting in the loss of

significant amounts of wetland and

associated upland habitats, with

significant negative effects on local and

regional biodiversity (Semlitsch and

Brodie 1998).

Projects affecting between 0.4 ha and

1.2 ha (1 ac and 3 ac) of isolated waters

also can be authorized under NWP 26

after the Corps circulates a predischarge notification to the Service and

other resource agencies for review and

comments. For such projects, the Corps

can place special conditions requiring

minimization of impacts and/or

compensatory mitigation on

authorizations granted under NWP 26.

The Corps can require an individual

permit for these projects if it determines

the project will have significant

individual or cumulative effects.

However, the Corps generally is

reluctant to withhold authorization

under NWP 26 unless a listed

threatened or endangered species is

known to be present. Also, the Corps

often confines its evaluation of impacts

to those areas under its jurisdiction ( i.e.,

wetlands and other waters of the United

States). Impacts to uplands and

mitigation for upland habitat losses

usually are not addressed by the Corps.

Preservation of existing pools without

protection of large blocks of suitable

uplands is unlikely to result in the

persistence of viable salamander

populations because the salamanders

require both aquatic and upland habitats

during their life cycle. Thus, section 404

provides insufficient protection of small

isolated wetlands.

An individual permit is required for

projects filling or affecting 1.2 ha (3 ac)

or more of isolated waters. Individual

permits are subject to review by the

Service, other resource agencies, and the

public. When we review the permit, we

may recommend measures to avoid,

minimize, or mitigate losses. In some

cases, compensatory mitigation (e.g., the

creation of artificial wetlands) is

incorporated in the Corps permit as a

Special Condition. However, problems

associated with such compensatory

measures often decrease or eliminate the

habitat value for salamanders at the sites

(DeWeese 1994).

The creation of artificial wetlands and

ponds as breeding habitat for tiger

salamanders has been used as a

compensatory mechanism for the loss of

natural wetlands and pools. The longterm viability and suitability of

artificially created wetlands are

unknown. In 1994 the Service

completed a report evaluating 30

wetland creation projects authorized

through the Corps of Engineers section

404 program (DeWeese 1994). Twentytwo projects ranged in age from 3 to 5

years old, and eight projects were

greater than 5 years old at the time of

the study. The Service found that,

although it appeared the Service’s goal

of ‘‘no net loss of acreage’’ was being

met or exceeded, the value of the habitat

created, which included the local

wildlife species that would be expected

to use the habitat, was low. This

situation was especially the case for

vernal pools and seasonal wetlands that

had a value of only 20 and 40 percent

(respectively) of what existed

previously. Particular problems were

noted for these habitat types, which

often were inundated (flooded) for

longer than natural systems or more

frequently. The study concluded that, of

the 600 ac of proposed mitigation, half

were meeting less than 75 percent of the

mitigation conditions. Mitigation and

compensation for impacts to larger

wetlands under section 404 have failed

to reduce threats to California tiger

salamanders.

The conversion of grazing land to

intensive agricultural uses that may

adversely affect the California tiger

salamander generally is unregulated at

any level of government. For example,

the Corps has promulgated regulations

that exempt some farming, forestry, and

maintenance activities from the

regulatory requirements of section 404

(33 CFR 323.4). Therefore, not all

activities that destroy or degrade vernal

pools require Corps authorization.

Certain normal farming activities,

including discing and plowing to depths

less than 16 in, can degrade or destroy

vernal pools without requiring a permit

because these activities are exempt

under the Clean Water Act. However,

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3103

deep-ripping, which disrupts the waterretaining hardpan that underlies vernal

pools and other seasonal wetlands, of

lands formerly used for ranching (i.e.,

grazing) or dry-land farming (e.g., nonirrigated hay production) represents a

‘‘change in use’’ of the lands and is not

considered a normal and ongoing

farming activity. As such, the practice

triggers section 404(f)(2) of the CWA,

and requires review by and a permit

from the Corps (R. H. Wayland III, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, and

D. R. Burns, Corps, in litt. 1996).

However, as discussed previously, the

Corps typically asserts jurisdiction only

over the actual wetlands, not over the

surrounding uplands.

State

The State of California recognizes the

California tiger salamander as a species

of special concern under the California

Endangered Species Act (ESA), and has

placed this species on the list of

protected amphibians, which means

that it may not be taken without a

special (i.e., scientific collecting) permit

(CRC, Title 14, Section 41). However,

this protection applies only to actual

possession or intentional killing of

individual animals, and affords no

protection to habitat. Activities that

destroy habitat and kill salamanders in

the process are not regulated.

The California Environmental Quality

Act (CEQA) offers some opportunities to

protect rare threatened and endangered

plants and animals and declares that it

is the policy of the State to ‘‘(p)revent

the elimination of fish or wildlife

species due to man’s activities, ensure

that fish and wildlife populations do not

drop below self-perpetuating levels, and

preserve for future generations

representations of all plant and animal

communities.’’ (California Public

Resources Code, section 21001(c) 1999).

Species do not have to be listed under

the Federal or California ESAs to meet

the determination of rare (California

Code of Regulations (CRC), Title 14,

Chapter 3, Section 15380(b)(2)). Species

that have been classified as ‘‘species of

special concern’’ are considered rare for

the purposes of CEQA. When the CEQA

process is triggered, it requires full

disclosure of the potential

environmental impacts of proposed

projects. However, the CEQA review

process is not triggered unless issuance

of a permit associated with a project is

considered ‘‘discretionary’’ rather than

‘‘ministerial.’’ The public agency with

primary authority or jurisdiction over

the project is designated as the lead

agency and is responsible for

conducting a review of the project and

consulting with the other agencies

concerned with the resources affected

by the project. Section 15065 of the

CEQA Guidelines requires a finding of

significance if a project has the potential

to ‘‘reduce the number or restrict the

range of a rare or endangered plant or

animal.’’ Once significant effects are

identified, the lead agency has the

option to require mitigation for effects

through changes in the projects or to

decide that overriding social or

economic considerations make

mitigation infeasible. In the latter case,

projects may be approved that cause

significant environmental damage, such

as destruction of rare species. Protection

of listed or rare species through CEQA

is, therefore, dependent upon the

discretion of the agency involved.

Therefore, the effectiveness of this

statute in protecting California tiger

salamanders and their vernal pool and

upland habitats has not been consistent.

Local

In Santa Barbara County, no specific

regulatory protection exists for vernal

pools, surrounding uplands, and their

associated species, including California

tiger salamanders. Some provisions are

discretionary and could provide some

measure of protection. For example, the

Santa Barbara County Grading

Ordinance (Ordinance 3937, Chapter 14

of the County Code) states that the

issuance of a grading permit is

discretionary (Section 14—6.(a)), and

that ‘‘no person shall cause or allow a

significant environmental impact to

occur as a result of new grading as

defined herein, including grading that is

otherwise exempt from these

regulations.’’ In one case in 1998, the

Planning Department required, after the

fact, a permit, the preparation of an

environmental impact report, and

mitigation for the discing of a vernal

pool and the deep-ripping of uplands

associated with that and an adjacent,

larger pool in preparation for vineyard

installation (Albert J. McCurdy, Deputy

Director, Santa Barbara County Planning

and Development, in litt. 1998a). Those

requirements were overturned by the

County Board of Supervisors (A.

McCurdy, in litt. 1998b). The Corps did

require a small set-aside approximately

5.7 ha (14 ac) to provide a narrow buffer

around both ponds, as mitigation for the

discing of the smaller pool (David

Castanon, Army Corps of Engineers, in

litt. 1999). In another case, grazing lands

surrounding another pool were

converted to row crops to the edge of

the pool. Although discing and other

activities clearly degraded the wetland,

no agency has required any review,

permits, or mitigation for the activities.

Typically, California tiger salamander

habitat has been eliminated without

offsetting mitigation measures. Most

mitigation plans that have been required

were designed specifically for vernal

pool plants and did not consider the

upland habitats, including mammal

burrows, needed by salamanders, or

their dispersal needs. As indicated

above, the artificial creation of vernal

pools and seasonal wetlands as

compensatory mitigation has not been

proven scientifically to be successful

over the long term (Zedler and Black

1988, Ferren and Gevirtz 1990, Zedler

and Calloway 1999). Race and Fonseca

(1996) reviewed numerous published

and unpublished documents, which

collectively analyzed over 2,000

permitted wetland mitigation projects,

and concluded that significant wetland

losses will continue unless compliance

with existing regulations and permits is

improved, more habitat is generated,

and more fully functioning wetlands are

created.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Affecting Its Continued Existence

Several other factors, including

habitat fragmentation, contaminants,

hybridization with and competition

from introduced species, and effects

from oil production and over-grazing

may have negative effects on California

tiger salamanders and their aquatic and

upland habitats.

Fragmentation

Amphibian populations may be prone

to local extinction due to human-caused

fragmentation (Findlay and Houlahan

1996, Gibbs 1998). The primary factors

that cause habitat fragmentation are

road construction, urbanization, and

intensive agriculture (Mader 1984;

Saunders et al. 1991). All documented

localities of California tiger salamanders

in Santa Barbara County are affected by

railroads, highways, or other roads that

have caused extensive fragmentation of

the landscape. The dispersal and

migration distances of California tiger

salamanders require a large amount of

barrier-free landscape (Loredo, et al.

1996; Shaffer, et al. 1993). Large roads

and highways represent permanent

physical obstacles and can block

California tiger salamanders from

moving to new breeding habitat or

prevent them from returning to their

breeding ponds or estivation sites. Road

construction can reduce or completely

eliminate the breeding population of an

entire pond and, in some cases, large

portions of a metapopulation.

Two Santa Barbara County tiger

salamander breeding ponds are within

0.4 km (0.2 mi) of a railroad that runs

3104 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

between them, possibly reducing

migration and genetic interchange

between the ponds. In addition to the

barriers created by fill deposited in

small canyons and watercourses, the

railroad tracks themselves can act as

barriers to migrating salamanders

(Thomas R. Jones, Museum of Zoology,

University of Michigan, in litt. 1993).

The animals have difficulty getting

under the tracks unless adequate holes

are present.

All 13 remaining breeding sites in

Santa Barbara County are near roads of

various sizes. Four are within 0.5 km

(0.3 mi) of a major U.S. highway that

bisects the pond complex, two are

bounded by a State highway, one is

immediately adjacent to a secondary

road (as was the one destroyed in 1998),

five are within 0.5 km (0.3 mi) of

secondary roads, and one is in an oil

field with dirt roads in the vicinity

(Sweet, et al. 1998a). Findlay and

Houlahan (1996) found that roads

within 2 km (1.2 mi) of wetlands

adversely affected the number of

amphibian species in the wetlands.

Large numbers of California tiger

salamanders, up to 15 or 20 per mile of

road (Joe Medeiros, Sierra College, pers.

comm. 1993), are killed as they cross the

roads on breeding migrations (Hansen

and Tremper 1993; S. Sweet, in litt.

1993). Estimates of losses to automobile

traffic range from 25 to 72 percent of the

breeding population (Twitty 1941; S.

Sweet, in litt. 1993; Launer and Fee

1996). Curbs and berms as low as 9 to

12 cm (3.5 to 5 in), which allow

salamanders to climb onto the road but

can restrict or prevent their movements

off the roads, are of particular concern,

as they effectively turn the roads into

death traps (Launer and Fee 1996; S.

Sweet, in litt. 1998a). Such berms exist

on the State highway and the secondary

road adjacent to three ponds in Santa

Barbara County.

Although few currently used breeding

ponds are within 0.5 km (0.3 mi) of

urban developments, the rapid

expansion of Santa Maria and nearby

communities will continue to fragment

the remaining habitat. The urbanization

of the Santa Maria River and Orcutt

Creek Valleys divided what was

probably a large, relatively contiguous

tiger salamander population extending

from the Casmalia Hills in the west to

Fulger Point in the east into isolated

subpopulations (West Orcutt, BradleyDominion) that are no longer capable of

genetic interchange. One pond in the

West Orcutt area is adjacent to an urban

development, the owner of the other

two ponds in that area has expressed a

desire to develop his property (E.

Gevirtz, pers. comm. 1999), and home

sites are being marketed in the BradleyDominion area.

Contaminants

Hydrocarbon and other contamination

from oil production and road runoff; the

application of numerous chemicals for

agricultural production, roadside

maintenance, urban/suburban landscape

maintenance; and rodent and vector

control programs may all have negative

effects on tiger salamander populations,

as detailed below.

Road mortality is not the only risk

factor associated with roads, as oil and

other contaminants in runoff have been

detected in adjacent ponds and linked

to die-offs of and deformities in

California tiger salamanders and

spadefoot toads and die-offs of

invertebrates that form most of both

species’ prey base (S. Sweet, in litt.

1993). Lefcort et al. (1997) found that oil

had limited direct effects on 5-week-old

marbled (A. opacum) and eastern tiger

salamanders (A. t. tigrinum), but that

salamanders from oil-contaminated

natural ponds metamorphosed earlier at

smaller sizes and those from oilcontaminated artificial ponds had

slower growth rates than larvae raised in

non-contaminated ponds. Their studies

did not address effects on eggs and early

larval stages, where the effects may be

more pronounced. Hatch and Burton

(1998) and Monson et al. (1999)

investigated the effects of one

component of petroleum products and

urban runoff (fluoranthene, a polycyclic

aromatic hydrocarbon) on spotted

salamanders (A. maculatum), northern

leopard frogs (Rana pipiens), and

African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis).

In laboratory and outdoor experiments,

using levels of the contaminant

comparable to those found in service

station and other urban runoff, the

researchers found reduced survival and

growth abnormalities in all species and

that the effects were worse when the

larvae were exposed to the contaminant

under natural levels of sunlight, rather

than in the laboratory under artificial

light.

Agricultural Contaminants

Even though most of the crop lands in

California have been in agricultural

production since 1900, the application

and associated effects of large amounts

of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides,

and nitrogen fertilizers on the landscape

have been addressed only recently

(Burow et al. 1998a,b). The

concentrations of these chemicals and

their immediate effects on various

species have been difficult to assess

mainly due to lack of water sample data

and lack of samples close to the sources

of application where the effects on

wildlife are most severe. In 1986–87 and

from 1993 to 1997, USGS and California

Department of Pesticide Regulation

(CDPR) personnel sampled well and

ground water at 156 locations

throughout the range of the California

tiger salamander (CDPR 1998; Burow et

al. 1998a,b). From these samples, 29

different chemicals potentially toxic to

amphibians in general and California

tiger salamanders specifically were

detected.

In Santa Barbara County, over 1

million kilograms (kg) (2.2 million

pounds (lb)) of agricultural chemicals

were used in 1994 on strawberries,

grapes, lettuce, broccoli, and carrots,

which were the five major crop types

grown on or near tiger salamander sites

at that time (California Department of

Food and Agriculture (CDFA) Internet

Website). These chemicals included

metam-sodium, methyl bromide, maneb,

fosetyl-aluminum, acephate, cryolite,

chlorpyrifos, and malathion, some of

which are extremely toxic to aquatic

organisms, including amphibians and

the organisms on which they prey.

Metam-sodium, a carbamate, was one

of the main chemicals applied on

broccoli and lettuce grown in 1994,

when over 114,000 kg (over 250,000 lb)

were used in Santa Barbara County

(CDFA). Metam-sodium is toxic to fish

(Meister 1997). However, no test data

are available for amphibians.

Chlorpyrifos is a highly toxic

organophosphate insecticide applied as

granules, wettable powder, dustable

powder, or emulsifiable concentrate

(EXTOXNET 1996). Chlorpyrifos was

detected at a concentration of 0.006

micrograms/liter (μg/l) in domestic well

water close to vineyards at one location

(Burow et al. 1998a); however, animals

migrating across recently treated fields

may be exposed to much higher

concentrations. The compound is

absorbed through the skin of mammals

(EXTOXNET 1999); amphibians, with

their more permeable skins, absorb the

chemical even more readily. General

agricultural use of chlorpyrifos is

considered to pose a serious threat to

wildlife (EXTOXNET 1999). Over 6,000

kg (13,000 lb) were used in Santa

Barbara County in 1994 (CDFA).

Malathion has caused effects such as

mortality, delays in metamorphosis, and

decreased size at metamorphosis in

several species of frogs and toads at

concentrations as low as 0.2 milligrams

(mg/l) (Devillers and Exbrayat 1992).

Malathion was detected at

concentrations up to 0.1 μg/l in test

wells near fields on which it has been

used (Burow 1998a). Over 3,500 kg

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3105

(7,800 lb) of malathion were used in

Santa Barbara County in 1994 (CDFA).

Although test data for amphibian

species could not be found, methyl

bromide is extremely toxic and is used

to kill weeds, insects, nematodes, and

rodents (Salmon and Schmidt 1984).

Methyl bromide is used primarily on

strawberries in Santa Barbara County,

which are grown extensively in the

eastern Santa Maria Valley (BradleyDominion metapopulation). Over

225,000 kg (500,000 lb) were used in

Santa Barbara County in 1994 (CDFA).

About 50 percent (6) of the remaining

13 documented California tiger

salamander breeding sites in Santa

Barbara County may be directly or

indirectly affected by toxic agricultural

chemical contaminants because there is

intensive agriculture within their

drainage basins. Even if toxic or

detectable amounts of pesticides are not

found in the breeding ponds or

groundwater, salamanders may still be

affected, particularly when chemicals

are applied during the migration and

dispersal seasons.

Rodent Control

California tiger salamanders spend

much of their lives in underground

retreats, typically in the burrows of

ground squirrels and gophers (Loredo et

al. 1996; Trenham 1998a). Widespread

ground squirrel control programs were

begun in California as early as 1910 and

are carried out on more than 4 million

ha (9.9 million ac) in California (Marsh

1987). It is unclear how effective such

control programs were in reducing

ground squirrel populations. According

to Marsh (1987), when a ground squirrel

population is at or near carrying

capacity, it must be reduced by at least

90 percent annually for several years to

significantly reduce the population.

However, it may not be practical to

attain such high reduction rates over

large areas typical of rangelands, but it

may be possible to reduce populations

to low numbers (Salmon and Schmidt

1984). In some primarily agricultural

counties, the ground squirrel population

has been reduced and maintained at

perhaps 10 to 20 percent of the carrying

capacity. Rodent control programs are

conducted by individual land owners

and managers on grazing, vineyard, and

crop production lands (R. Thompson, in

litt. 1998).

Until about 1990, ground squirrel

control programs using compound 1080

(sodium fluoroacetate) were carried out

on lands in Santa Barbara County

(Rosemary Thompson, Senior Biologist,

SAIC, in litt. 1998). Compound 1080 is

extremely toxic to nontarget fish, birds,

and mammals (U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency 1990) and may have

contributed to reductions in salamander

populations in the areas where it was

used.

Poisoned grains are the most common

method used to control ground squirrels

on rangelands, and there is little risk of

ingestion by California tiger

salamanders. However, the use of these

grains may impact the California tiger

salamanders indirectly if washed into

burrows or ponds used by the species.

Two of the most commonly used

rodenticides, chlorophacinone and

diphacinone, are anticoagulants that

cause animals to bleed to death. They

can be absorbed through the skin and

are considered toxic to fish and wildlife

(EPA 1985, EXTOXNET 1999). Both,

along with strychnine, are used in Santa

Barbara County to control rodents (R.

Thompson, in litt. 1998). Zinc

phosphide, an acute rodenticide and a

restricted material, turns into a toxic gas

once ingested. Although the effects of

these poisons on California tiger

salamanders have not been assessed, use

along roadways or railways may result

in contamination of salamander

breeding ponds, with undetermined

effects. Gases, including aluminum

phosphide, carbon monoxide, and

methyl bromide, can be introduced into

burrows either by using cartridges or by

pumping. When such fumigants are

used, all animals inhabiting the burrow

are killed (Salmon and Schmidt 1984).

In addition to possible direct effects of

rodent control chemicals, control

programs probably have an adverse

indirect effect on California tiger

salamander populations. Control of

ground squirrels could significantly

reduce the number of burrows available

for use by the species (LoredoPrendeville et al. 1994). Because the

burrow density required to support

California tiger salamanders in an area

is not known, the loss of burrows as a

result of control programs cannot be

quantified at this time. However,

Shaffer, et al. (1993) believe that rodent

control programs may be responsible for

the lack of California tiger salamanders

in some areas. Active ground squirrel

colonies probably are needed to sustain

tiger salamanders because inactive

burrow systems become progressively

unsuitable over time. Loredo et al.

(1996) found that burrow systems

collapsed within 18 months following

abandonment by or loss of the ground

squirrels; although the researchers

found that California tiger salamanders

used both occupied and unoccupied

burrows, they did not indicate that the

salamanders used collapsed burrows.

Rodent control programs must be

analyzed and implemented carefully in

California tiger salamander habitat so

the persistence of the salamanders is not

threatened. Current risks to the

salamander in Santa Barbara County

from rodent control programs are

unknown.

Mosquito Control

A commonly used method to control

mosquitoes, including in Santa Barbara

County (Kenneth Leanard, Santa

Barbara County Vector Control, pers.

comm. 1999) is the application of

methoprene, which increases the level

of juvenile hormone in insect larvae and

disrupts the molting process. Lawrenz

(1984–85) found that methoprene

(Altosid SR–10) retarded the

development of selected crustacea that

had the same molting hormones (i.e.,

juvenile hormone) as insects and

anticipated that the same hormone may

control metamorphosis in other

arthropods. Because the success of

many aquatic vertebrates relies on an

abundance of invertebrates in temporary

wetlands, any delay in insect growth

could reduce the numbers and density

of prey available (Lawrenz 1984–85).

The use of methoprene thus could have

an indirect adverse effect on the

California tiger salamander by reducing

the availability of prey. In more recent

studies, although methoprene did not

cause increased mortality of gray

treefrog (Hyla versicolor) tadpoles

(Sparling and Lowe 1998), it caused

reduced survival rates and increased

malformations in northern leopard frogs

(Rana pipiens) (Ankley et al. 1998) and

increased malformations in southern

leopard frogs (R. utricularia) (Sparling

1998). Blumberg et al. (1998) also

correlated exposure to methoprene with

delayed metamorphosis and high

mortality rates in northern leopard and

mink (R. septentrionalis) frogs.

Methoprene appears to have both direct

and indirect effects on the growth and

survival of larval amphibians.

Other insecticides (e.g., temephos)

have caused reductions in the growth

rates of gray treefrog tadpoles, increased

mortality rates in green frog (R.

clamitans) tadpoles (Sparling and Lowe

1998), and increased mortality rates in

southern leopard frogs (Sparling 1998).

Few data are available on the effects of

most insecticides on salamanders. A

bacterium, Bacillus thuringensis israeli

(Bti), is also used in Santa Barbara

County for mosquito control (K.

Leanard, pers. comm. 1999). Its effects

on the salamander prey base have not

been quantified. Because of a lack of

information regarding which mosquito

control chemicals are used and where,

and about the chemicals’ effects on

salamanders, the degree to which the

3106 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

practices directly affect the California

tiger salamander in Santa Barbara

County cannot be determined at this

time.

Introduced Species

Introduced species can have negative

effects on California tiger salamander

populations through competition and

hybridization (Shaffer, et al. 1993; H. B.

Shaffer, in litt. 1999). Competition from

fish that prey on mosquito larvae and

other invertebrates can reduce the

survival of salamanders. Both California

tiger salamanders (Stebbins 1962; J. D.

Anderson 1968; Holomuzki 1986) and

mosquitofish feed on micro and macroinvertebrates; large numbers of

mosquitofish may out-compete the

salamander larvae for food (Graf 1993).

As urban areas continue to expand, the

introduction of mosquitofish into

previously untreated ponds may result

in the elimination of California tiger

salamanders from additional breeding

sites. The introduction of other fish

either inadvertently (fathead minnow,

Pimephales promelas) (P. Collins, pers.

comm. 1999) or for recreational fishing

(e.g., bass (Micropterus salmoides, M.

dolomieui), sunfish (S. Sweet, pers.

comm. 1999) or other purposes may also

affect the prey base, reducing growth

and survival rates of salamanders. Fish

such as bass, green sunfish (L.

cyanellus), carp (Cyprinus carpio), and

bullhead (Ictalurus spp.) may also prey

on tiger salamander larvae, reducing or

eliminating populations (Shaffer, et al.

1993).

Various nonnative subspecies of the

tiger salamander, Ambystoma tigrinum,

have been imported into much of

California for use as fish bait. The

practice is still legal in California but is

now restricted to fewer counties and is

regulated by the California Department

of Fish and Game (CCR Title 14,

Division 1, Subdivision 1, Chapter 2,

Article 3, Section 4 1999). Although

importation into Santa Barbara County

is illegal, introduced tiger salamanders

have been documented at one locality

west of the Santa Rita Valley (S. Sweet,

pers. comm. 1998). Although they have

not been documented in California tiger

salamander habitat nonnative

salamanders could potentially be

introduced into breeding sites or into

nearby ponds. The introduced

salamanders may out-compete the

California tiger salamander, or

interbreed with the natives to create

hybrids that may be less adapted to the

California climate or are not

reproductively viable past the first or

second generations (Bury and

Lukenbach 1976; Shaffer, et al. 1993).

More recent evidence suggests that the

hybrids are viable, and that they breed

with California tiger salamanders (H. B.

Shaffer, in litt. 1999). With so few

remaining subpopulations of California

tiger salamanders in Santa Barbara

County, the loss of any to hybridization

with or competition from introduced

species is of serious concern.

Grazing

Grazing in many cases has positive, or

at least neutral, effects on the California

tiger salamander (H. B. Shaffer and Peter

Trenham, UCD, pers. comm. 1998; S.

Sweet, pers. comm. 1998; 1999). By

keeping vegetation shorter, grazing can

make areas more suitable for ground

squirrels, whose burrows are used by

California tiger salamanders. In Santa

Barbara County, the only remaining

sites with large amounts of suitable

salamander habitat (eight ponds at five

sites) currently are being grazed.

Although cattle drink large quantities of

water, sometimes causing temporary

pools to dry faster than they otherwise

would (Sheri Melanson, Service, in litt.

1993) and possibly causing breeding

pools to dry too quickly for salamanders

to be able to metamorphose (Feaver

1971), these rangelands are the only

undeveloped habitat in the area and

thus provide the only chance for

salamanders to breed successfully.

Although Melanson (1993) noted that

vernal pool species continued to

reproduce under a November-to-April

grazing regime, California tiger

salamanders were either absent or found

in low numbers in portions of pools that

were heavily trampled by cattle.

Continued trampling of a ponds’ edge

by cattle can increase the surface area of

a pond and may increase water

temperature and speed up the rate of

evaporation and thus reduce the amount

of time the pond contains enough water

(S. Sweet, pers. comm. 1998). Cattle

hoofprints could trap salamanders as

water levels in pools recede, and

reduction in water quality caused by

cattle excrement may negatively affect

the animals mainly by increasing

potentially detrimental nitrogen levels.

High nitrogen levels have been

associated with blooms of deadly

bacteria (Worthylake and Hovingh

1989), and silt has been associated with

fatal fungal infections (Lefcort et al.

1997) (see Factor C of this section).

However, grazing generally is

compatible with the continued use of

rangelands by the California tiger

salamander as long as intensive

burrowing rodent control programs are

not implemented on such areas and

grazing is not excessive (T. Jones, in litt.

1993; Shaffer, et al. 1993; S. Sweet, pers.

comm. 1998, 1999).

Reason for Emergency Determination

Under section 4(b)(7) of the Act and

regulations at 50 CFR 424.20, we may

emergency list a species if the threats to

the species constitute an emergency

posing a significant risk to its wellbeing. Such an emergency listing

expires 240 days following publication

in the Federal Register unless, during

this 240-day period, we list the species

following the normal listing procedures.

Below, we discuss the reasons why

emergency listing the Santa Barbara

County population of California tiger

salamanders as endangered is necessary.

In accordance with the Act, if at any

time after we publish this emergency

rule, we determine that substantial

evidence does not exist to warrant such

a rule, we will withdraw it.

In making this determination, we

have carefully assessed the best

scientific and commercial information

available regarding the past, present,

and future threats faced by the Santa

Barbara County population of California

tiger salamanders. This DPS is one of

the two most genetically differentiated

populations of the species and is

restricted to very few breeding ponds,

all of which are threatened by

agricultural conversion, fragmentation,

and development. As discussed under

Factor A of this section, ponds and

upland habitats are being lost at a rapid

rate in all four regions of the county in

which the species occurs, and no

preserves have been established to

protect the species. As discussed in

Factor E of this section, this salamander

is a DPS and still occurs in a significant

part of its historic range, but the

remaining subpopulations are becoming

increasingly fragmented and thus

vulnerable to threats associated with

isolation and small population size.

From the discussion under Factor D of

this section, it is clear that Federal,

State, and local regulations and

ordinances, individually and

collectively, do not provide adequate

protection for California tiger

salamanders or assure that California

tiger salamanders will continue to

survive in Santa Barbara County.

The 14 known breeding sites (1 was

destroyed in 1998 (G. McLaughlin, in

litt. 1999) and several others may no

longer support breeding) are all located

on privately owned land, and no

conservation agreements or easements

are in place. Given the extremely rapid

rate of recent and projected habitat loss

and degradation, this DPS is in

imminent danger of extinction

throughout its historic range. The

survival of the Santa Barbara County

population of the California tiger

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3107

salamander now depends on protecting

as many breeding sites and the

associated upland habitats from further

degradation and destruction as possible,

and on the rapid rehabilitation of sites

that have been seriously degraded in the

last few years. The remaining

subpopulations in Santa Barbara County

are vulnerable to extinction from

random natural or human-caused events

unless sufficient habitat can be

protected and the subpopulations

increased in size.

Critical Habitat

In the last few years, a series of court

decisions have overturned Service

determinations regarding a variety of

species that designation of critical

habitat would not be prudent (e.g.,

Natural Resources Defense Council v.

U.S. Department of the Interior 113 F.

3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1997); Conservation

Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F. Supp.

2d 1280 (D. Hawaii 1998)). Based on the

standards applied in those judicial

opinions, we have examined the

question of whether critical habitat for

the Santa Barbara County California

tiger salamander would be prudent.

Due to the small number of

populations the Santa Barbara County

California tiger salamander is vulnerable

to unrestricted collection, vandalism, or

other disturbance. We remain concerned

that these threats might be exacerbated

by the publication of critical habitat

maps and further dissemination of

locational information. However, we

have examined the evidence available

for Santa Barbara County California tiger

salamander and have not found specific

evidence of taking, vandalism,

collection, or trade of this species.

Consequently, consistent with

applicable regulations (50 CFR

424.12(a)(1)(i)) and recent case law, we

do not expect that the identification of

critical habitat will increase the degree

of threat to this species of taking or

other human activity.

In the absence of a finding that critical

habitat would increase threats to a

species, if there are any benefits to

critical habitat designation, then a

prudent finding is warranted. In the

case of this species, there may be some

benefits to designation of critical

habitat. The primary regulatory effect of

critical habitat is the section 7

requirement that Federal agencies

refrain from taking any action that

destroys or adversely modifies critical

habitat. While a critical habitat

designation for habitat currently

occupied by this species would not be

likely to change the section 7

consultation outcome because an action

that destroys or adversely modifies such

critical habitat would also be likely to

result in jeopardy to the species, there

may be instances where section 7

consultation would be triggered only if

critical habitat is designated. Examples

could include unoccupied habitat or

occupied habitat that may become

unoccupied in the future. There may

also be some educational or

informational benefits to designating

critical habitat. Therefore, we find that

critical habitat is prudent for the Santa

Barbara County California tiger

salamander.

The Final Listing Priority Guidance

for FY 2000 (64 FR 57114) states, ‘‘The

processing of critical habitat

determinations (prudency and

determinability decisions) and proposed

or final designations of critical habitat

will be funded separately from other

section 4 listing actions and will no

longer be subject to prioritization under

the Listing Priority Guidance. Critical

habitat determinations, which were

previously included in final listing rules

published in the Federal Register, may

now be processed separately, in which

case stand-alone critical habitat

determinations will be published as

notices in the Federal Register. We will

undertake critical habitat

determinations and designations during

FY 2000 as allowed by our funding

allocation for that year.’’ As explained

in detail in the Listing Priority

Guidance, our listing budget is currently

insufficient to allow us to immediately

complete all of the listing actions

required by the Act. Deferral of the

critical habitat designation for the Santa

Barbara County California tiger

salamander will allow us to concentrate

our limited resources on higher priority

critical habitat and other listing actions,

while allowing us to put in place

protections needed for the conservation

of the Santa Barbara County California

tiger salamander without further delay.

We plan to employ a priority system

for deciding which outstanding critical

habitat designations should be

addressed first. We will focus our efforts

on those designations that will provide

the most conservation benefit, taking

into consideration the efficacy of critical

habitat designation in addressing the

threats to the species, and the

magnitude and immediacy of those

threats. We will develop a proposal to

designate critical habitat for the Santa

Barbara County California tiger

salamander as soon as feasible,

considering our workload priorities.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered or

threatened 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

actions by Federal, State, and local

agencies, private organizations, and

individuals. The Act provides for

possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the State and requires

that recovery actions be carried out for

all listed species. The protection

required of Federal agencies and the

prohibitions against certain activities

involving listed species are discussed,

in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended,

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 being

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 us on

any action that is likely to jeopardize

the continued existence of a proposed

species or result in destruction or

adverse modification of proposed

critical habitat. If a species is listed

subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires

Federal agencies to ensure that activities

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not

likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of such a species or to destroy

or adversely modify its critical habitat.

If a Federal agency action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must enter

into formal consultation with us.

Federal agency actions that may affect

the Santa Barbara County population of

California tiger salamanders and may

require conference and/or consultation

with us include, but are not limited to,

those within the jurisdiction of the

Corps, Bureau of Reclamation, Natural

Resources Conservation Service, Federal

Farm Bureau, and Federal Highway

Administration.

The Act and its implementing

regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set

forth a series of general prohibitions and

exceptions that apply to all endangered

wildlife. These prohibitions, in part,

make it illegal for any person subject to

the jurisdiction of the United States to

take (including harass, harm, pursue,

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,

or collect; or attempt any such conduct),

import or export, ship in interstate or

foreign commerce in the course of

commercial activity, or sell or offer for

sale in interstate or foreign commerce

any listed species. It also is illegal to

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or

ship any such wildlife that has been

3108 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply

to our agents and those of State

conservation agencies.

Permits may be issued to carry out

otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered wildlife under

certain circumstances. Regulations

governing permits are codified at 50

CFR 17.22 and 17.23. For endangered

species, such permits are available for

scientific purposes, to enhance the

propagation or survival of the species,

and for incidental take in connection

with otherwise lawful activities.

As published in the Federal Register

on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), it is our

policy to identify to the maximum

extent practicable at the time a species

is listed those activities that would or

would not constitute a violation of

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this

policy is to increase public awareness of

the effect of the listing on proposed and

ongoing activities within a species’

range.

We believe that, based on the best

available information, the following

actions are not likely to result in a

violation of section 9, provided these

actions are carried out in accordance

with any existing regulations and permit

requirements:

(1) Possession of a Santa Barbara

County California tiger salamander

legally acquired prior to the effective

date of this rule and consistent with 50

CFR 17.4;

(2) Actions that may affect the Santa

Barbara County California tiger

salamander that are authorized, funded,

or carried out by a Federal agency, when

the action is conducted in accordance

with an incidental take statement issued

by us under section 7 of the Act;

(3) Actions that may affect the Santa

Barbara County California tiger

salamander that are not authorized,

funded, or carried out by a Federal

agency, when the action is conducted in

accordance with an incidental take

statement issued by us under section

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act. Applicants design

a plan or a Habitat Conservation Plans

and apply for an incidental take permit.

These are developed for species listed

under section 4 of the Act and are

designed to minimize and mitigate

impacts to the species to the greatest

extent practicable; and

(4) Actions that may affect the Santa

Barbara County California tiger

salamander that are conducted in

accordance with the conditions of a

section 10(a)(1)(A) permit for scientific

research or to enhance the propagation

or survival of the species.

We believe that the following actions

could result in a violation of section 9;

however, possible violations are not

limited to these actions alone:

(1) Unauthorized possession,

collecting, trapping, capturing, killing,

harassing, sale, delivery, or movement,

including intrastate, interstate, and

foreign commerce, or harming, or

attempting any of these actions, of Santa

Barbara County California tiger

salamanders without a permit (research

activities where salamanders are

trapped or captured will require a

permit under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the

Endangered Species Act);

(2) Destruction or alteration of the

Santa Barbara County California tiger

salamander occupied habitat through

the discharge of fill material into

breeding sites; draining, ditching,

tilling, stream channelization, drilling,

pumping, or other activities that

interrupt surface or ground water flow

into or out of the vernal pool and

seasonal pond habitats of this species

( i.e., due to the construction,

installation, or operation and

maintenance of roads, impoundments,

discharge or drain pipes, storm water

detention basins, wells, water diversion

structures, etc.);

(3) Discharges or dumping of toxic

chemicals, silt, or other pollutants into,

or other alteration of the quality of

waters supporting Santa Barbara County

California tiger salamanders that results

in death or injury of the species or that

results in degradation of their occupied

habitat;

(4) Release of exotic species

(including, but not limited to, bullfrogs,

eastern tiger salamanders, mosquitofish,

bass, sunfish, bullhead, catfish, crayfish)

into Santa Barbara County tiger

salamander breeding habitat; and

(5) Destruction or alteration of

uplands associated with vernal pool or

seasonal pond habitats used by Santa

Barbara County California tiger

salamanders during estivation and

dispersal, or modification of migration

routes such that migration and dispersal

are reduced or precluded.

Questions regarding whether specific

activities will constitute a violation of

section 9 should be directed to the Field

Supervisor of the Ventura Fish and

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Requests for copies of the regulations

regarding listed species and inquiries

regarding prohibitions and permits may

be addressed to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Endangered Species

Permits, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland,

Oregon 97232–4181 (503/231–2063,

facsimile 503/231–6243).

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that an

Environmental Assessment, as defined

under the authority of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need

not be prepared in connection with

regulations adopted pursuant to section

4(a) of the Act, as amended. We

published a notice outlining our reasons

for this determination in the Federal

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR

49244).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any

collections of information that require

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) approval under the Paperwork

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

An information collection related to the

rule pertaining to permits for

endangered and threatened species has

OMB approval and is assigned clearance

number 1018–0094. This rule does not

alter that information collection

requirement. For additional information

concerning permits and associated

requirements for endangered wildlife,

see 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.22.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

in this rulemaking is available upon

request from the Field Supervisor,

Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office (see

ADDRESSES section).

Authors

The primary authors of this rule are

Grace McLaughlin, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and

Wildlife Office, and Dwight Harvey,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office

(see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

For the reasons given in the preamble,

we amend part 17, subchapter B of

chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. Amend §17.11(h) by adding the

following, in alphabetical order under

AMPHIBIANS, to the List of Endangered

and Threatened Wildlife:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 12 / Wednesday, January 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 3109

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

AMPHIBIANS

*******

Salamander, California tiger.Ambystoma

californiense.

U.S.A. (CA) ............. U.S.A., (CA—Santa

Barbara County).

E 667 NA NA

*******

Dated: December 20, 1999.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 00–1156 Filed 1–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P