Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices 35951

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a

Petition to List the Southern Torrent

Salamander in California as

Endangered or Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition

finding.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a

12-month finding for a petition to list

the southern torrent salamander

(Rhyacotriton variegatus) in northern

California and southern Oregon under

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended. After review of all available

scientific and commercial information,

we find that listing the southern torrent

salamander is not warranted at this

time. The finding is based on the

following information: The species still

occurs throughout its entire historical

range; the species persists in its habitats

after habitat alterations have occurred,

including logging; the lack of

information on short-and long-term

population trends for the species across

its range; the adverse impacts to the

species from logging, construction of

logging roads, and logging related

activities do not threaten the survival of

the species; the lack of substantial

information indicating that

overutilization for commercial,

recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes adversely impacts the species;

the lack of evidence showing

conclusively that predation is a threat to

the species’ survival; current regulatory

practices do not constitute a threat to

the survival of the species; and the lack

of information that the species is

threatened by low gene flow and low

genetic diversity across its range.

DATES: The finding for this document

was made on May 31, 2000. Comments

and information may be submitted until

further notice.

ADDRESSES: Data, information,

comments, and material concerning the

petition finding may be submitted to the

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife

Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W–2605,

Sacramento, California 95825–1864. The

12-month petition finding, supporting

data, and comments are available for

public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Ann Chrisney or Ms. Jan Knight at the

above address or telephone (916) 414–

6600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (16

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that,

for any petition to revise the Lists of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants that presents substantial

scientific and commercial information,

we make a finding within 12 months of

the date of the receipt of the petition on

whether the petitioned action is (a) not

warranted, (b) warranted, or (c)

warranted but precluded from an

immediate proposal by other pending

proposals of higher priority. Such 12-

month findings are to be published

promptly in the Federal Register.

On May 31, 1994, we received a

petition from Stephan Volker, dated

May 24, 1994, to list the southern

torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton

variegatus) as threatened. Mr. Volker is

an attorney representing the

Environmental Protection Information

Center, North Coast Environmental

Center, Oregon Natural Resources

Council, California Wilderness

Coalition, Friends of the River, South

Fork Mountain Defense Committee,

Mendocino Environmental Center,

Sierra Club, California Sportfishing

Alliance, Willits Environmental Center,

and Ancient Forest Defense Fund. The

petition stated that timber harvesting

fragmented the salamander’s habitat on

Federal and private lands, decimated its

population, and sharply inhibited its

dispersal capability. In a letter to Mr.

Volker, dated June 10, 1994, we

explained that, under the provisions of

the Act, we must decide if the petition

presents substantial scientific or

commercial information that the

requested action is warranted and, to

the maximum extent practicable, make

this finding within 90 days after

receiving the petition and promptly

publish it in the Federal Register. On

November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982), we

designated the species as a category 2

candidate species. Although we no

longer use this designation, a category 2

candidate was considered a species for

which Federal listing may be

appropriate, but persuasive data on

biological vulnerability and threats were

not available to support a proposed

listing. Although no mandatory

protection was conferred with this

status, the notice of this status

supported the need to conduct research

to determine the threats and

vulnerability of the species. On June 29,

1995, we determined that Mr. Volker’s

petition presented substantial

information that the requested action

may be warranted, and we published an

announcement of our administrative

finding (60 FR 33785). At that time, we

initiated a status review of the southern

torrent salamander.

Due to a limited budget, listing

actions required by court orders, and

other higher listing priorities, we were

unable to make a listing determination

on this species in a timely manner. On

April 10, 1995, a moratorium on listing

actions (Public Law 104–6) took effect

with the stipulation that no funds could

be used to make final listing or critical

habitat determinations. When the

moratorium was lifted on April 26,

1996, a three-tier approach was

established to rank the backlog of listing

actions for fiscal year 1996 (May 16,

1996; 61 FR 24722). The 12-month

status review for the southern torrent

salamander was designated a Tier 3

activity, the lowest listing priority. On

December 5, 1996, new listing guidance

was published for fiscal year 1997 (61

FR 64475) that used a four-tier

approach. The 12-month status review

for the southern torrent salamander

remained a Tier 3 activity. However,

due to a continuing backlog of listing

actions, we focused our resources on

Tier 1 and Tier 2 actions until April 1,

1997. By April 1, 1997, we began to

address Tier 3 actions, but a serious

backlog of listing actions still existed.

On May 8, 1998, we published the

Listing Priority Guidance for FY 1998

and 1999 (63 FR 25502), and the 12-

month status review for the southern

torrent salamander was raised to Tier 2.

Although we published 2 emergency

listings, 47 final listings, 10

withdrawals, 48 proposed listings, and

18 petition findings, the southern

torrent salamander was among 22

species with pending 12-month

findings. On October 22, 1999, we

published the Final Listing Priority

Guidance for Fiscal Year 2000 (64 FR

57114). The tier approach was

eliminated as a guide for handling our

remaining backlog and future work in

the listing program in favor of a priority

system that identified higher priorities

for certain listing actions. Processing

administrative findings on petitions,

such as the one for the southern torrent

salamander, was designated a fourth

priority.

Species Information

Southern torrent salamanders have

very specific habitat requirements of

cold, shallow, flowing headwaters in

humid coniferous forests up to an

elevation of 1,469 meters (m) (4,820 feet

(ft)) (Nussbaum and Tait 1977;

35952 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices

Nussbaum et al. 1983; Diller and

Wallace 1996; Welsh and Lind 1996).

They are most frequently found in

seeps, springs, and intermittent streams

(Welsh 1993; Vesely 1996; Olson, in litt.

1999) or shallow water seeping through

moss-covered gravel (Nussbaum et al.

1983) and appear to avoid open deep

water channels (Stebbins 1985; Welsh

1993). The aquatic larvae usually occur

in loose gravel in streambeds, and

semiaquatic adults can be found next to

larvae in streams, or under rocks or

debris in saturated streamside habitats

(Nussbaum and Tait 1977; Nussbaum et

al. 1983).

The southern torrent salamander is

very sensitive to desiccation (losing

moisture through the skin) (Ray 1958)

and cannot move far from moist areas.

Movements of the southern torrent

salamander have been estimated from 1

to 2.2 m (3 to 6 ft) per year (Welsh and

Lind 1992) up to 50 m (160 ft) per year

from permanent water (Good and Wake

1992). These larger movements,

however, are thought to be rare (Good

and Wake 1992). Southern torrent

salamanders have also been found short

distances from water after heavy rains

(Nussbaum et al. 1983). Riparian areas

are thought to be important to the

species for foraging (Corn and Bury

1989) and courtship and reproduction

(Nussbaum et al. 1983). If terrestrial

visits are important for feeding,

reproduction, and dispersal, then shade

and high surface water availability are

needed to allow for movement within

these riparian areas.

Southern torrent salamanders can

grow to approximately 9.5 centimeters

(3.75 inches) in length (Good and Wake

1992). They have a low tolerance for

high temperatures and are typically

found in areas with temperatures

between 5.8 and 12.0 degrees centigrade

(°C) (10 to 22 degrees Fahrenheit (°F))

(Brattstrom 1963; Nussbaum et al. 1983).

Lethal temperatures occur above 17.2 °C

(63 °F) (Welsh and Lind 1996).

Southern torrent salamanders have a

lengthy larval period of 3 to 3.5 years

(Nussbaum and Tait 1977) and require

an additional 1 to 1.5 years after

metamorphosis to become sexually

mature (Nussbaum and Tait 1977).

Southern torrent salamanders are

probably communal nesters, as other

torrent salamanders may be (Nussbaum

1969), producing an average of 8.4 to

10.0 eggs each year (Nussbaum et al.

1983). The southern torrent

salamander’s food is primarily aquatic

and semiaquatic invertebrates (Bury and

Martin 1967).

The spaces between cobble or pebblesize stones found in streams appear to

provide refuge for salamanders from

predators, such as fish and Pacific giant

salamanders (Dicamptodon ensatus).

Southern torrent salamanders are not

frequently found in streams where large

Pacific giant salamanders or fish are

found. If southern torrent salamanders

do occur in these streams, they are

usually found in the margins where they

can find cover, away from the deep

pools and glides (Welsh 1993; Welsh

and Olivier 1992; Welsh, pers. comm.

1995; Olson, pers. comm. 1995).

Another potential predator of

salamanders may include garter snakes

(Nussbaum et al. 1983.)

Southern torrent salamanders have a

patchy distribution across their range

(Welsh and Lind 1992). Suitable habitat

is naturally limited by the geology and

topography of an area. While the

southern torrent salamander may be

locally abundant in certain areas,

salamander populations are not found

in all apparently suitable habitats.

During surveys of apparently suitable

habitats, researchers detect southern

torrent salamanders only 20 to 80

percent of the time. This low level of

detection may be due to the fact that

random sampling techniques of suitable

habitats may not provide an accurate

picture of the southern torrent

salamander occurrence due to the

inherent patchiness of their distribution.

Populations of the species may be

disjunct due to geographical variations,

microhabitat variability, or historical

land management practices. Density

estimates range widely from 0.04

individuals up to 41 individuals per

square meter (11 square feet) (Nussbaum

and Tait 1977; Corn and Bury 1989).

The range of the southern torrent

salamander occurs within the coastal

conifer forest belt of northern California

and southern Oregon, specifically from

southern Mendocino County, California,

through the Coast Ranges, to the Little

Nestucca River and the Grande Ronde

Valley in Polk, Tillamook, and Yamhill

Counties, Oregon (Good and Wake

1992). An isolated population exists on

the west slope of the Cascade Mountains

near Steamboat in Douglas County,

Oregon, approximately 112 kilometers

(70 miles) inland (Good and Wake 1992;

B. Bury, National Biological Survey,

pers. comm. 1995). Several new

populations of southern torrent

salamanders have been detected north

of the Steamboat population on the

south side of the Willamette River.

These populations represent an

extension of the known range (R.S.

Wagner, United States Geological

Service, Biological Research Division,

pers. comm. 1998). Another disjunct

population is thought to occur in south

central Siskiyou County, California,

based on specimens in the Chico State

University Museum that date back to the

1950s (H. Welsh, Forest Service, pers.

comm. 1994). Good and Wake (1992)

described this species as one of the most

common members of the salamander

fauna through much of its range.

According to the petitioner, 98

percent of the historical records of the

southern torrent salamander in the

Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (MVZ),

University of California, Berkeley,

represent only 42 populations detected

in protected rights-of-way, county

highways, or in State and national

parklands that include less than 5

percent of the total range of the species.

The MVZ records were collected from

1935 to 1989, with the majority (70

percent) collected after 1970. Our

review of these records revealed

approximately 151 sites where southern

torrent salamanders were detected. The

most recent location data obtained for

this review, from a variety of formal and

informal surveys conducted from 1987

to 1998, indicated approximately 781

sites containing southern torrent

salamanders across its historical range

from north-central Oregon to northern

California. We expect some overlap in

the sites documented in these two

groups of data, but the level of overlap

has not been analyzed. In addition, we

have not attempted to define

populations from this location

information. Surveys for southern

torrent salamanders across their range

were conducted by Good and Wake

(1992) and Wagner (in litt. 1998) and, in

California, by Welsh (Welsh 1990;

Welsh and Lind 1992; Welsh, in litt.

1998). According to Wake (University of

California, pers. comm. 1995), southern

torrent salamanders are found

throughout their historical range.

Threats Analysis

Habitat

The petition to list the southern

torrent salamander cited habitat

fragmentation, population declines, and

inhibited dispersal capability

throughout the species’ range as

significant threats to the species. The

petitioner suggested that large-scale

timber harvesting is eliminating many

subpopulations through destruction of

required habitats. The petitioner further

suggested that this species may require

conditions and attributes unique to

headwater streams in mature and oldgrowth forests and the species has

minimal ability to withstand and

recover from radical habitat alterations.

Evidence indicates that timber

harvesting and road building negatively

affect habitat requirements of the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices 35953

southern torrent salamander (permanent

water, rocky substrates, and low water

temperatures). The direct effects of these

activities include disturbance of

substrate and killing of individual

salamanders. Indirect effects include

sedimentation of substrate used by the

salamanders, increase in water

temperatures to lethal levels, potential

loss of permanent water flow, and

potential increase in predator

populations. Suitable habitat conditions

and attributes for the southern torrent

salamander appear to be more readily

available in unlogged mature and oldgrowth forests than in logged areas

(Welsh 1990; Diller 1996). In logged

areas, the abundance of salamanders is

lower or they are not detected at all,

which indicates that logging may

depress or locally extirpate these

populations (Corn and Bury 1989;

Welsh and Lind 1992). However, while

some research has revealed negative

impacts of logging and road

construction on southern torrent

salamander populations, other research

and survey information indicates

southern torrent salamanders still

persist in some habitats that were logged

14 to 60 years ago (Nussbaum and Tait

1977; Corn and Bury 1989; Welsh and

Lind 1992; Olson, in litt. 1994; Chinnici,

in litt. 1995; Diller, in litt. 1995; Pious,

in litt. 1995; Wright, in litt. 1995; J.

Ambrose, Georgia-Pacific Corporation,

pers. comm. 1995; J. Applegarth, Bureau

of Land Management (BLM), pers.

comm. 1995; S. Hopkins, BLM, pers.

comm. 1995; K. Wright, BLM, pers.

comm. 1995). Whether the species is

recolonizing these areas or whether its

long lifespan enables it to persist in

marginal habitats until conditions

improve is unknown. Factors that may

mitigate lethal water temperatures in

logged areas include the retention of

deciduous vegetation and

unmerchantable trees, cool water from

underground springs, cool

microclimates on north-or east-facing

slopes, and coastal fog. Sedimentation

of the substrate may be mitigated by the

flushing of these sediments in higher

gradient streams. Some research has

reported a positive relationship between

stream gradient and the presence of

southern torrent salamanders in logged

habitats (Welsh 1993; Welsh and

Ollivier 1992; Diller 1996). The

southern torrent salamander may also be

capable of burrowing vertically in the

substrate to find moist, cool conditions.

We agree that widespread logging of

headwater habitats has negative impacts

on southern torrent salamander

populations through the destruction of

suitable habitats. However, under

certain circumstances, populations

appear to be persisting in altered

habitats. We also believe that State and

Federal agencies provide varying

degrees of protective measures for

maintaining aquatic and riparian

habitats on forested lands (California

Department of Forestry (CDF) 1992;

USDA et al. 1993; Oregon Department of

Forestry (ODF) 1994; USDA and USDI

1994a). The threat to this species from

habitat destruction is directly related to

protection provided by State, Federal,

and private regulatory measures for

timber harvest activities.

Federal Regulations for Timber Harvest

The trend of large-scale logging of

mature and old-growth forests on public

lands within the range of the southern

torrent salamander has diminished

since the Federal listing of the northern

spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

in 1990 (55 FR 26192). This trend

toward lower timber production and

less regeneration logging is reflected in

the standards and guidelines for land

management in the Record of Decision

for the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA

and USDI 1994a) and in Endangered

Species Act consultations by us on

timber sales and National Forest Land

Management Plans (A. Brickey, Service,

pers. comm. 2000; N. Lee, Service, pers.

comm. 2000). Although clearcutting

could mean an increase in timber

production on private lands,

clearcutting vast areas within a drainage

is generally no longer a common or

commonly accepted practice. Forest

ecosystems are typically able to recover

from small-scale disturbances, and the

effects of timber harvest diminish as

forests regenerate.

Public Land Regulations

We estimate that approximately 41

percent of the total range of the southern

torrent salamander occurs on federally

managed public forest lands in both

Oregon and California (summarized

from Davis et al. 1998; Kagan et al.

1999). A Forest Conference was

convened by President Clinton in 1993

to resolve forest resource issues in the

Pacific Northwest. As a result, a group

of interdisciplinary, interagency experts,

known as the Forest Ecosystem

Management Assessment Team

(FEMAT), came together to develop a

comprehensive management plan for

more than 137,128 hectares (ha) (24

million acres (ac)) of public forest lands.

The outcomes were the FEMAT Report

(USDA et al. 1993), a Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)

(USDA and USDI 1994b), and,

ultimately, a Record of Decision (ROD)

(USDA and USDI 1994a) that amended

the planning documents of 19 national

forests and 7 BLM Districts to

implement an alternative that became

known as the Northwest Forest Plan

(Forest Plan). The FEMAT reports a total

of 37 percent of the southern torrent

salamander’s range on Federal lands

and 63 percent on State and private

lands, an estimate very similar to that

developed during this review (41

percent and 59 percent respectively).

One of the reasons identified in the

petition to list the southern torrent

salamander is a lack of protection for

headwater habitats where this species is

known to occur. The petitioner claims

that 90 percent of the range of the

southern torrent salamander is on lands

that are harvestable or have been

harvested. Referencing the FEMAT

report, the petition states that ‘‘37

percent of the range of this salamander

occurs on Federal lands, while 27

percent is on lands in the matrix

(harvestable areas).’’ The petitioner’s

subsequent conclusion appears to be

that the 27 percent of the total range of

the species that occurs on public lands,

plus the 63 percent of the species’ range

occurring on private lands (90 percent

of the species’ complete range) is open

to harvest or has been harvested. We do

not agree with this interpretation of the

FEMAT report. Appendix Table IV–C–9

in the FEMAT report indicates that the

percentage of land designated as matrix

under the Forest Plan represents 25

percent of the 37 percent of the range

that occurs on public lands (USDA et al.

1993). This amount is equal to less than

10 percent of the entire range of the

species. The remaining 75 percent of the

species’ range on public lands occurs

almost entirely in withdrawn areas or

reserves (approximately 68 percent) and

Adaptive Management Areas

(approximately 6 percent) (USDA et al.

1993).

Furthermore, as described in the

FEMAT report, the SEIS, and the ROD,

all aquatic/riparian habitats on public

lands covered by the Forest Plan are to

be protected in riparian reserves. This

means that any land allocations

designated in the FEMAT report,

including matrix lands, that include

aquatic or riparian habitat are contained

in riparian reserves that are designed to

protect riparian and aquatic components

from actions that will negatively impact

them (M. Raphael, Forest Service, pers.

comm. 1995). Therefore, the 27 percent

figure quoted in the petition as

salamander habitat that is at risk within

matrix lands fails to take into account

the riparian reserves protecting

watercourses in the matrix (K. Denton,

Forest Service, pers. comm. 1995).

Riparian reserves apply to all streams,

35954 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices

lakes, ponds, and wetlands on Forest

Service and BLM lands within the range

of the northern spotted owl (USDA and

USDI 1994b). The primary purpose of

riparian reserves is to protect and

maintain riparian resources and to

attain the objectives of the Aquatic

Conservation Strategy, which is part of

the Forest Plan. This strategy is

specifically designed to protect

headwater tributaries (including

intermittent streams, seeps and springs)

and riparian areas (USDA et al. 1993;

USDA and USDI 1994a).

The FEMAT report provides the most

current risk analysis of the southern

torrent salamander on public lands and

states that implementation of the Forest

Plan, as approved, would result in a

very high likelihood that the majority

(74 percent) of southern torrent

salamander habitats on public lands

would be well distributed and that the

species population could stabilize,

although with some limitation on

interactions among populations. This

analysis was based on the anticipated

level of riparian protection in riparian

reserves. The final ROD later doubled

the riparian reserve widths for

intermittent streams and wetlands of

less than 1 ha (2.4 ac) from 15 to 30 m

(50 to 100 ft) or one site-potential tree

(the average height of a tree growing at

that site). This change would protect

more southern torrent salamander

habitat than evaluated in the FEMAT

report.

The Forest Plan has been in effect

since April 1994. As of 1995, riparian

reserves were generally being planned

according to the intent of the Forest

Plan (M. Boroja, Service, pers. comm.

1995; A. Brickey, pers. comm. 1995; P.

Henson, Service, pers. comm. 1995; S.

Livingston, Service, pers. comm. 1995).

The land management agencies

recognized that the procedure to adjust

or decrease the widths of riparian

reserves recommended in the Forest

Plan was time-consuming, and,

therefore, they did not generally pursue

efforts to alter the widths. Additionally,

it appeared that many riparian reserves

were increased due to unstable geology.

An interagency monitoring program in

1996 and 1997 evaluated whether the

intent of the ROD and its guidelines was

being met. Reports from both years

concluded that the Forest Service and

BLM were consistently meeting the

intent of the ROD in developing riparian

reserves.

The petitioner suggested that no-entry

buffers of 33 m (100 ft) or the height of

one site-potential tree should be

established around small streams and

headwaters in old-growth and mature

conifer forests. In the Pacific northwest,

timber harvest adjacent to old-growth

forests is estimated to affect the

microclimate up to two tree lengths into

the remaining forest stands (Franklin

and Forman 1987 in Lehmkulh and

Ruggiero 1991; Harris 1984). Other

estimates include microclimate effects

from 30 to 240 m (approximately 100 to

800 ft) into interior forest, depending on

the site and specific microclimate

parameters (Chen et al. 1995 in Vesely

1996). There is general agreement that a

protected buffer zone for streams, seeps,

springs, and adjacent riparian habitat is

necessary to maintain microclimates

and prevent sedimentation in these

watercourses. Based on the evidence

that southern torrent salamanders

appear to stay in very close proximity to

watercourses, we believe the riparian

reserve system of the currently adopted

and court-tested Forest Plan provides

adequate protective measures to

maintain the quality of most of the

riparian and aquatic habitats for the

southern torrent salamander on public

lands across the range of the species.

California Private Land Regulations

Approximately 26 percent of the

southern torrent salamander’s entire

range occurs on private lands in

California and 2 percent on California

State lands. This species is designated

as a species of special concern in

California. Special concern status

confers no legal protection for the

species, but recognizes that the species

should be closely monitored. In

response to a 1994 petition to list the

southern torrent salamander as

threatened under State law, the

California Fish and Game Commission

(CFGC), in conjunction with California

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG),

determined on January 8, 1996, that

listing the species as threatened was not

warranted (CFGC, in litt. 1996). This

decision was based on the presence of

southern torrent salamanders in

degraded habitat, improved logging

practices, and inadequate information

on the significance and causes of any

population declines. However, these

agencies improved protective measures

for this species through changes in

policies and regulations.

During the candidacy period (the

period between the time a petition is

accepted by the State and a final

determination is required) from

November 1994 to December 1995,

training was provided to 64 biologists,

231 private foresters, and 60 CDF

inspectors on how to recognize southern

torrent salamander habitat and conduct

surveys. The CDFG reported the

following objectives for the 1-year

candidacy period: (1) document as

many existing localities as possible on

private land and at historic sites; (2)

determine status of populations and

habitat (and metapopulation structure);

(3) examine population trends through

the comparisons of managed and

unmanaged lands; and (4) determine the

adequacy of current forest practice rules

to protect the species and its habitat

(CDFG, in litt. 1995). A sampling

protocol was developed to collect data

to meet these objectives (CDFG in litt.

1995). However, to date, we are unaware

of any results from objectives 2, 3, or 4

of the candidacy period.

Most of the suitable habitat for the

southern torrent salamander occurs in

what the CDF designates as Class II

streams, which include perennial

streams that are non-fish bearing but

contain other aquatic life (CDF 1992).

Protections for Class II streams include

15 to 30 m (50 to 100 ft) Watercourse

and Lake Protection Zones (WLPZ) that

retain at least 50 percent canopy

closure, 25 percent overstory conifers,

and 75 percent surface cover. No heavy

equipment is allowed within the WLPZ,

and roads, landings, and timber falling

are limited to protect the beneficial uses

of the watercourse. Any changes in the

widths of the WLPZ or proposed

activities within the WLPZ must first be

carefully analyzed and reviewed to

ensure protection of the beneficial uses

of the stream. Some persons have

speculated that Class II protection may

be adequate to protect the southern

torrent salamander and its habitat in the

coastal forests but may not provide

adequate protection in the more arid

southern and eastern portions of the

range (J. Brode, CDFG, pers. comm.

1994, Steele, CDFG, pers. comm. 1995).

We are aware that stream

classification is highly subjective in the

timber planning process. Habitat for

southern torrent salamanders may also

occur along streams that have been

classified as Class III (streams, including

seeps and springs, with no aquatic life

but capable of sediment transport). In

these areas, obvious aquatic life may not

be apparent, the streams may appear

dry, and they may not contain obvious

channels or pools. Although these

appear to be Class III streams, they may

often provide suitable habitat for, and

contain, the southern torrent

salamander. The water level may be just

above the surface or subsurface, and

salamanders may not be detectable at all

times of year. Incorrect classification of

streams could potentially result in

application of Class III stream protection

measures being applied to habitats that

are likely to contain southern torrent

salamanders. Current protection for

Class III streams is not adequate to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices 35955

protect southern torrent salamander

habitat (CFGC 1994).

The training of biologists and foresters

resulted in some increased awareness of

the significance of headwater streams,

seeps, and springs as valuable aquatic

habitats requiring Class II protection.

Based on over a decade of field

experience in habitat identification and

stream classification in California, K.

Moore (CDFG, pers. comm. 2000)

estimates that perhaps 50 percent of

suitable seep, spring, and stream habitat

has been recognized and given some

level of protection from logging

activities. However, some seeps and

springs that have not been identified as

salamander habitat and retain no

comprehensive protection under the

State rules are still logged and burned

(K. Moore, pers. comm.1999).

We support a review of the Forest

Practice Rules by CDFG and believe that

Class II protection has the potential to

provide some protection for the

southern torrent salamander provided

habitat is correctly identified. However,

we are concerned about the

effectiveness of timber harvest planning

on private lands because of (1) the high

ratio of Emergency and Exemption

Notices to regular Timber Harvest Plans

(THP) in California, (2) cumulative

impacts not being addressed in THPs,

and (3) a lack of THP enforcement (State

of California 1994).

Oregon Private Land Regulations

Private lands in Oregon constitute

approximately 31 percent of the

southern torrent salamander’s entire

range. One percent of the salamander’s

range occurs on Oregon State lands. The

salamander is designated as a sensitive

species, subcategory vulnerable, by the

State of Oregon. State sensitive

classification refers to naturally

reproducing native species that are

likely to become threatened or

endangered throughout all or any

significant portion of their range in

Oregon (Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife (ODFW) 1993). The vulnerable

category implies that listing the species

is not imminent provided that

continued or expanded use of protective

measures and monitoring occurs (ODFW

1993). However, the southern torrent

salamander is protected from being

killed, harmed, or collected under the

Oregon Administrative Rule section

635–44–130 (Nongame Wildlife

Protected) (ODFW 1991). A State

scientific collecting permit is required

to take this species from the field for

educational or research purposes

(ODFW 1991).

Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF)

rules establish Riparian Management

Areas (RMAs) adjacent to all Type D

streams (non-fish-bearing streams with

domestic water use) and Type N streams

(all other streams except those fishbearing streams with domestic water

use), except for small Type N streams.

The goal of these buffers is to protect

water quality, hydrological function,

and fish and wildlife habitat by

requiring vegetation retention and

special management practices. The

RMAs range from 6 to 21 m (20 to 70

ft) and have retention standards for

understory, overstory, snags, and logs.

Further restrictions occur on road

construction, yarding, stream crossings,

and stream improvement. The RMAs

offer some protection from direct

impacts, but the protections may be too

small to compensate for the effects on

microclimates from logging. The areas

most at risk are the small Type N

streams where no RMAs are required

and restrictions of logging activities are

very flexible and left up to the

operator’s discretion in most cases. The

few specific management

recommendations for small Type N

streams do not apply to the Coast Range

and South Coast geographic regions,

where the majority of the southern

torrent salamander range occurs.

RMAs are not required for seeps and

springs within the range of the southern

torrent salamander in Oregon. The

Oregon Forest Practice Rules state that

operators shall protect hydrological

functions of seeps, springs, and

wetlands by minimizing disturbance to

soils during forest operations (ODF

1994). The ODF interprets this rule to

mean that no machinery is allowed in

seeps, springs, or wetlands, and

citations have been issued for this

violation (J. Runion, ODF, pers. comm.

1995). Furthermore, the Oregon Forest

Practice Rules recognize that

amphibians may occur in small Type N

streams and encourage operators to

retain green trees and snags in blocks of

intact vegetation of undetermined size

(ODF 1994). The headwater habitats on

private land in Oregon are probably not

completely protected from the effects of

logging, and some biologists in Oregon

have expressed concerns about this lack

of protection (J. Boechler, ODFW, pers.

comm. 1995; R. Krahmer, ODF, pers.

comm. 1995; C. Puchy, ODFW, pers.

comm. 1995; K. Wright, pers. comm.

1995).

We believe that existing regulatory

measures provide varying degrees of

protection for southern torrent

salamander habitat on public and

private lands. The regulatory protection

of aquatic and riparian habitat appears

to be generally better on public lands

than private lands and better for streams

than for seeps and springs. If we assume

that southern torrent salamander habitat

on all Federal lands (41 percent of the

total range) has moderate to good

protection, that approximately 50

percent of private land in California (13

percent of the total range) and 50

percent of private land in Oregon (16

percent of the total range) and all State

lands (3 percent of the total range) have

low to moderate protection, then 73

percent of the total range of the species

is estimated to have some level of

regulatory protection.

Although logging began in Pacific

Northwest forests almost 200 years ago,

State and Federal land management

regulations that protect aquatic and

riparian habitats have only been

instituted in the last 20 to 30 years.

Consequently for approximately 170

years, timber harvest in aquatic and

riparian habitats was virtually

unregulated. Therefore, some

populations of southern torrent

salamanders have persisted or

recolonized in areas that had no

protective buffers when they were

harvested. Whether these individuals

recolonized the area after regrowth of

the surrounding vegetation or survived

the habitat alteration is unclear. While

the presence of individuals does not

necessarily indicate viable populations,

what is known is that both larvae and

adults are being detected across the

range of the species.

Based on the species’ persistence, the

fact that some level of regulatory

protection occurs on an estimated threequarters of the species’ range, and the

current trend in timberland

management is away from clearcutting

in riparian areas and toward increasing

awareness of the significance of

headwater habitats, we believe that

current regulatory practices, while not

ideal, provide sufficient protection to

insure that the existence of the species

is not threatened at this time. While

recent improvements in protections of

southern torrent salamander habitats

have been implemented on Federal

lands, habitats on private lands are still

vulnerable until specific changes in

policy and procedures change the way

these habitats are protected. However,

future trends toward protecting aquatic

habitats for listed salmonids, including

headwater habitats, should also benefit

the southern torrent salamander. Based

on our assumptions stated above

concerning estimated regulatory

protections, and the fact that the species

appears to be distributed across its range

and is persisting in altered habitats, we

also conclude that habitat destruction or

modification is not severe enough to

35956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 109 / Tuesday, June 6, 2000 / Notices

threaten the existence of the species at

this time or in the foreseeable future.

Genetics

The genus Rhyacotriton has always

been perceived as genetically isolated

from other genera of salamanders (Good

and Wake 1992). Research by Good and

others in 1987 (Good et al. 1987 in Good

and Wake 1992) showed ‘‘extreme and

unexpectedly high levels of genetic

differentiation’’ for Rhyacotriton

olympicus, which at that time was

considered a single species over the

Pacific Northwest. Good et al. (1987 in

Good and Wake 1992) divided

Rhyacotriton into four genetically

different populations. Good and Wake

(1992) concluded that four separate

species should be recognized within the

genus Rhyacotriton, one of which is

Rhyacotriton variegatus, the southern

torrent salamander.

The genetic diversity within the

southern torrent salamander is evidence

of very low gene flow between

populations. Good and Wake (1992)

suggest that gene flow between

populations of southern torrent

salamanders at the extreme ends of the

species’ range is not likely to occur, but

that gene flow among adjacent

populations of southern torrent

salamanders is what holds the species

together as a cohesive unit. In reference

to southern torrent salamander

populations, Wake (in litt. 1994) stated

‘‘the genetic differentiation is strongly

structured geographically, so that there

is a pattern of isolation by distance.

What this means is that genetic distance

between populations builds directly as

a function of geographic distance.’’ In

other words, as the geographical

distance between populations increases,

populations become more genetically

different and isolated. This finding

strongly implies that animals within

each population seldom left their

respective populations or moved

between populations over a period of

thousands of years (Wake, in litt. 1994).

Therefore, southern torrent salamanders

show a great deal of genetic

differentiation between individual

animals from different populations, but

show very little differentiation between

individuals within the same population.

Dr. Susan Haig and Steve Wagner of

United States Geological Service in

Corvallis, Oregon, have been conducting

genetic studies on mitochondrial DNA

sequences of the southern torrent

salamander to investigate the extent of

population divergence and the

relationships among populations. The

results of these studies will be evaluated

after they have been peer-reviewed and

published.

Because of the naturally low gene

flow between southern torrent

salamander populations and the great

amount of genetic diversity between

individuals within the species, the loss

of subpopulations could mean a

significant loss of genetic diversity. Low

genetic diversity within a population or

subpopulation is thought to decrease

that group’s ability to withstand

catastrophic natural events or manmade

impacts. We believe that the most

vulnerable populations of southern

torrent salamanders are those found on

the southern and eastern edges of the

range. These populations are suspected

to be the most distinct genetically

(Wake, in litt. 1994) and the most

susceptible to the negative impacts of

timber harvest. Although we recognize

the implications of low genetic diversity

for the southern torrent salamander,

until adequate genetic studies are

completed, information is lacking to

make a determination that low genetic

diversity and gene flow threaten the

continued existence of the species. We

will reevaluate this issue after results of

ongoing genetic studies are available.

However, we recommend that

populations at the edge of the range be

given high priority for determining

population status and trends.

Conclusion

We recognize that the southern torrent

salamander has very specific habitat

requirements, a naturally patchy

distribution across its range, and low

gene flow between populations. The

southern torrent salamander is not

considered to be dependent solely on

old-growth forests, but the preferred

microclimate conditions are more

readily available in mature and oldgrowth forests. We acknowledge that

logging of headwater habitats in oldgrowth forests has depressed or

extirpated some populations of this

species. However, we believe that the

trend of habitat loss for the southern

torrent salamander is lessening across

much of the range with a reduction in

clearcutting and with some increased

awareness and some protections of

headwater habitats. The southern

torrent salamander is present

throughout its historical range,

including populations in altered

habitats, despite little or no stream

protection at the time they were logged.

Relevant ongoing research is being

conducted on headwater habitats and

the southern torrent salamander, but a

current lack of general baseline

information exists on population status

and trends, and genetic diversity of the

species.

On the basis of the best available

scientific and commercial information,

we find that the southern torrent

salamander is not likely to become an

endangered species within the

foreseeable future throughout all or a

significant portion of its range.

Therefore, listing the species as

threatened is not warranted at the

present time. The southern torrent

salamander will remain as a species of

concern for which evidence of

vulnerability exists, but for which

substantial data are lacking to support a

proposal to list as threatened or

endangered. We will continue to seek

information on the status of the

southern torrent salamander, and, if

information becomes available

indicating that listing as endangered or

threatened is appropriate, we would

propose to list the salamander.

Furthermore, we retain the option of

recognizing a subspecies or a population

segment for listing should information

become available indicating that such

an action is appropriate and warranted.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited

herein is available on request from the

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office

(see ADDRESSES section).

Author. The primary author of this

notice is Ann Chrisney, Sacramento

Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section).

Authority: The authority for this section is

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Dated: May 31, 2000.

Jamie Rapaport Clark,

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 00–14084 Filed 6–5–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service

National Register of Historic

Places;Notification of Pending

Nominations

Nominations for the following

properties being considered for listing

in the National Register were received

by the National Park Service before May

26, 2000. Pursuant to § 60.13 of 36 CFR

part 60 written comments concerning

the significance of these properties

under the National Register criteria for

evaluation may be forwarded to the

National Register, National Park Service,

1849 C St. NW., NC400, Washington, DC