54822 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 312–6633. 

• Hand delivery: Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop 

Street, Denver, Colorado. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID no. EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983– 

0002. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in the 

hard copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at: 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Region 8 Records Center, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, CO 80202, 

Hours: M–F, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Colorado 

Department of Public Health and the 

Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive 

South, Denver, CO 80246, Hours: M–F, 

8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rebecca Thomas, Project Manager 

(8EPR–SR), U.S. EPA Region 8, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, (303) 312–6552, 

thomas.rebecca@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ Section of 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

publishing a direct final Notice of 

Partial Deletion for each of the 11 

operable units, with the exception of 

groundwater contamination associated 

with Operable Unit 8, of the Denver 

Radium Superfund Site without prior 

Notice of Intent for Partial Deletion 

because EPA views this as a 

noncontroversial revision and 

anticipates no adverse comment. We 

have explained our reasons for this 

partial deletion in the preamble to the 

direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, 

and those reasons are incorporated 

herein. If we receive no adverse 

comment(s) on this partial deletion 

action, we will not take further action 

on this Notice of Intent for Partial 

Deletion. If we receive adverse 

comment(s), we will withdraw the 

direct final Notice of Partial Deletion, 

and it will not take effect. We will, as 

appropriate, address all public 

comments in a subsequent final Notice 

of Partial Deletion based on this Notice 

of Intent for Partial Deletion. We will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this Notice of Intent for Partial 

Deletion. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final Notice of Partial Deletion 

which is located in the Rules section of 

this Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous 

waste, Hazardous substances, 

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Superfund, Water 

pollution control, Water supply. 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. 

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR, 

1991 Comp., p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923; 

3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193. 

Dated: August 31, 2010. 

James B. Martin, 

Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22488 Filed 9–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2009–0041] 

[MO 92210–0–008] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List the Jemez Mountains 

Salamander (Plethodon 

neomexicanus) as Endangered or 

Threatened With Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12–month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12–month finding on a petition to list 

the Jemez Mountains salamander 

(Plethodon neomexicanus) as an 

endangered or threatened species and to 

designate critical habitat under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). After review of all 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that listing the 

Jemez Mountains salamander as 

endangered or threatened throughout its 

range is warranted. Currently, however, 

listing the Jemez Mountains salamander 

is precluded by higher priority actions 

to amend the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon 

publication of this 12–month petition 

finding, we will add the Jemez 

Mountains salamander to our candidate 

species list. We will develop a proposed 

rule to list the Jemez Mountains 

salamander as our priorities allow. We 

will make any determination on critical 

habitat during development of the 

proposed rule. In the interim period, we 

will address the status of the candidate 

taxon through our annual Candidate 

Notice of Review (CNOR). 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on September 9, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS-R2-ES-2009-0041. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours by contacting the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New 

Mexico Ecological Services Office, 2105 

Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113. 

Please submit any new information, 

materials, comments, or questions 

concerning this finding to the above 

address. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54823 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Wally Murphy, Field Supervisor, New 

Mexico Ecological Services Office (see 

ADDRESSES); by telephone at 505-346- 

2525; or by facsimile at 505-346-2542. If 

you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for 

any petition to revise the Federal Lists 

of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

and Plants that contains substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that listing the species may 

be warranted, we make a finding within 

12 months of the date of receipt of the 

petition. In this finding we determine 

that the petitioned action is: (a) Not 

warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) 

warranted, but immediate proposal of a 

regulation implementing the petitioned 

action is precluded by other pending 

proposals to determine whether species 

are endangered or threatened, and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add or remove qualified species from 

the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of 

the Act requires that we treat a petition 

for which the requested action is found 

to be warranted but precluded as though 

resubmitted on the date of such finding, 

that is, requiring a subsequent finding to 

be made within 12 months. We must 

publish these 12–month findings in the 

Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Actions 

We initially considered the Jemez 

Mountains salamander (Plethodon 

neomexicanus) for listing under the Act 

in the early 1980s (General Accounting 

Office 1993, p. 30). In December 1982, 

we published a notice of review 

classifying the salamander as a Category 

2 species (47 FR 58454, December 30, 

1982). Category 2 status included those 

taxa for which information in the 

Service’s possession indicated that a 

proposed listing rule was possibly 

appropriate, but for which sufficient 

data on biological vulnerability and 

threats were not available to support a 

proposed rule. 

On February 21, 1990, we received a 

petition to list the salamander as 

threatened. Subsequently, we published 

a positive 90–day finding, indicating 

that the petition contained sufficient 

information to suggest that listing may 

be warranted (55 FR 38342; September 

18, 1990). In the Candidate Notice of 

Review (CNOR) published on November 

21, 1991, we announced the salamander 

as a Category 1 species with a 

‘‘declining’’ status (56 FR 58814). 

Category 1 status included those species 

for which the Service had on file 

substantial information regarding the 

species’ biological vulnerability and 

threat(s) to support proposals to list 

them as endangered or threatened 

species. The ‘‘declining’’ status indicated 

decreasing numbers, increasing threats, 

or both. 

On May 30, 1991, the Service, the 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the New 

Mexico Department of Game and Fish 

(NMDGF) signed a Memorandum of 

Agreement outlining actions to be taken 

to protect the salamander and its habitat 

on the Santa Fe National Forest lands, 

including the formation of a team of 

agency biologists to immediately 

implement the Memorandum of 

Agreement and to develop a 

management plan for the species. The 

management plan was to be 

incorporated into the Santa Fe National 

Forest Plan. On April 3, 1992, we 

published a 12–month finding that 

listing the salamander was not 

warranted because of the conservation 

measures and commitments within the 

Memorandum of Agreement (57 FR 

11459). In the November 15, 1994, 

CNOR, we included the salamander as 

a Category 2 species, with a trend status 

of ‘‘improving’’ (59 FR 58982). A status 

of ‘‘improving’’ indicated those species 

known to be increasing in numbers or 

whose threats to their continued 

existence were lessening in the wild. 

In the CNOR published on February 

28, 1996, we announced a revised list of 

animal and plant taxa that were 

regarded as candidates for possible 

addition to the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants (61 FR 

7596). The revised candidate list 

included only former Category 1 

species. All former Category 2 species 

were dropped from the list in order to 

reduce confusion about the conservation 

status of those species, and to clarify 

that the Service no longer regarded them 

as candidates for listing. Because the 

salamander was a Category 2 species, it 

was no longer recognized as a candidate 

species as of the February 28, 1996, 

CNOR. 

In January 2000, the New Mexico 

Endemic Salamander Team (NMEST), a 

group of interagency biologists 

representing NMDGF, the Service, the 

U.S. Geological Survey, and the Santa 

Fe National Forest, finalized a 

Cooperative Management Plan for the 

salamander on lands administered by 

the Santa Fe National Forest 

(Cooperative Management Plan), and the 

agencies signed an updated 

Conservation Agreement that 

superseded the Memorandum of 

Agreement. The stated purpose of the 

Conservation Agreement and the 

Cooperative Management Plan was to 

provide for the long-term conservation 

of salamanders by reducing or removing 

threats to the species and by proactively 

managing their habitat (NMEST 2000 

Conservation Agreement, p. 1). In a 

Decision Notice and Finding of No 

Significant Impact for the Forest Plan 

Amendment for Managing Special 

Status Species Habitat, signed on 

December 8, 2004, the Cooperative 

Management Plan was incorporated into 

the Santa Fe National Forest Plan. 

On October 15, 2008, we received a 

petition dated October 9, 2008, from 

WildEarth Guardians requesting that we 

list the Jemez Mountains salamander 

(Plethodon neomexicanus) (salamander) 

as endangered or threatened under the 

Act, and designate critical habitat. On 

August 11, 2009, we published a 90–day 

finding that the petition presented 

substantial information that listing the 

salamander may be warranted and that 

initiated a status review of the species 

(74 FR 40132). On December 30, 2009, 

WildEarth Guardians filed suit against 

the Service for failure to issue a 12– 

month finding on the petition 

(WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, No. 

09-1212 (D.N.M.)). Under a stipulated 

settlement agreement, the 12–month 

finding is due to the Federal Register by 

September 8, 2010. This notice 

constitutes our 12–month finding for the 

petition to list the Jemez Mountains 

salamander as endangered or 

threatened. 

Species Information 

The salamander is uniformly dark 

brown above, with occasional fine gold 

to brassy coloring with stippling 

dorsally (on the back and sides) and is 

sooty gray ventrally (underside). The 

salamander is slender and elongate, and 

it possesses foot webbing and a reduced 

fifth toe. This salamander is strictly 

terrestrial and is a member of the family 

Plethodontidae. The salamander does 

not use standing surface water for any 

life stage. Respiration occurs through 

the skin, which requires a moist 

microclimate for gas exchange. 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

The salamander was originally 

reported as Spelerpes multiplicatus 

(=Eurycea multiplicata) in 1913 

(Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 27); however, 

it was described and recognized as a 

new and distinct species (Plethodon 

neomexicanus) in 1950 (Stebbins and 

Riemer, pp. 73-80). No subspecies are 

recognized. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

54824 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

It is a member of the Plethodontidae 

family. Two species of plethodontid 

salamanders are endemic (native and 

restricted to a particular region) to New 

Mexico: the Jemez Mountains 

salamander and the Sacramento 

Mountains salamander (Aneides hardii). 

Unlike all other North American 

plethodontid salamanders, these two 

species are geographically isolated from 

all other species of Plethodon and 

Aneides. 

Distribution 

The distribution of plethodontid 

salamanders in North America has been 

highly influenced by past changes in 

climate and associated Pleistocene 

glacial cycles. In the Jemez Mountains, 

the lack of glacial landforms indicates 

that alpine glaciers did not develop 

here, but the abundance of evidence 

from exposed rock surfaces that have 

been quickly broken up by frost action 

may reflect near-glacial conditions 

during the Wisconsin Glacial Episode 

(Allen 1989, p. 11). Conservatively, the 

salamander has likely occupied the 

Jemez Mountains for at least 10,000 

years, but this could be as long as 1.2 

million years, colonizing the area 

subsequent to volcanic eruption. 

The salamander is restricted to the 

Jemez Mountains in northern New 

Mexico, in Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, and 

Sandoval Counties, around the rim of 

the collapsed caldera (large volcanic 

crater), with some occurrences on 

topographic features (e.g., resurgent 

domes) on the interior of the caldera. 

The majority of salamander habitat is 

located on federally managed lands 

including USFS, Valles Caldera 

National Preserve (VCNP), National Park 

Service (Bandelier National Monument), 

and Los Alamos National Laboratory, 

with some habitat located on tribal land 

and private lands (NMEST 2000, p. 1). 

The species predominantly occurs at an 

elevation between 2,200 and 2,900 

meters (m) (7,200 and 9,500 feet (ft)) 

(Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28), but has 

been found as low as 2,133 m (6,998 ft) 

(Ramotnik 1988, p. 78) and as high as 

3,350 m (10,990 ft) (Ramotnik 1988, p. 

84). 

We divided known salamander 

distributional data into 5 units (Unit 1- 

Western; Unit 2-Northern; Unit 3-EastSouth-Eastern; Unit 4-Southern; and 

Unit 5-Central) to provide clarity in 

describing and analyzing the potential 

threats that may differ across the 

species’ range. We developed these 

units based on the best information 

available to us, but some of the unit 

boundaries are based on incomplete 

occupancy information. These units 

reflect where surveys have occurred and 

generally follow breaks in topography. 

For example, there are areas (e.g., 

VCNP) where few surveys have been 

conducted and occupancy may not be 

uniform. Because the salamander has 

been found to occupy a wide variety of 

sites, we do not know the extent of 

geographic or genetic connectivity 

between localities. The VCNP is located 

west of Los Alamos, New Mexico, and 

is owned by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (part of the National Forest 

System), but run by a nine-member 

Board of Trustees: the Supervisor of 

Bandelier National Monument, the 

Supervisor of the Santa Fe National 

Forest, and seven other members with 

distinct areas of experience or activity 

appointed by the President of the 

United States (Valles Caldera Trust 

2005, pp. 1-11). Prior to Federal 

ownership in 2000, the VCNP was 

privately held. 

Habitat 

The terrestrial salamander 

predominantly inhabits mixed conifer 

forest, consisting primarily of Douglas 

fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), blue spruce 

(Picea pungens), Engelman spruce (P. 

engelmannii), white fir (Abies concolor), 

limber pine (Pinus flexilis), Ponderosa 

pine (P. ponderosa), Rocky Mountain 

maple (Acer glabrum), and aspen 

(Populus tremuloides) (Degenhardt et al. 

1996, p. 28; Reagan 1967, p. 17). The 

species can also be found in stands of 

pure Ponderosa pine and in spruce-fir 

and aspen stands, but these forest types 

have not been adequately surveyed. 

Predominant understory includes Rocky 

Mountain maple (Acer glabrum), New 

Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana), 

oceanspray (Holodiscus sp.), and 

various shrubby oaks (Quercus spp.) 

(Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28; Reagan 

1967, p. 17). Salamanders are generally 

found in association with decaying 

coniferous logs, and in areas with 

abundant white fir, Ponderosa pine, and 

Douglas fir as the predominant tree 

species (Ramotnik 1988, p. 17; Reagan 

1967, pp. 16-17). Salamanders use 

decaying coniferous logs considerably 

more often than deciduous, likely due to 

the physical features (e.g., blocky 

chunks with cracks and spaces) that 

form as coniferous logs decay (Ramotnik 

1988, p. 53). Still, the species may be 

found beneath some deciduous logs and 

excessively decayed coniferous logs, 

because these can provide surface 

habitat and cover (Ramotnik 1988, p. 

53). 

Biology 

The salamander is strictly terrestrial 

and does not possess lungs. The 

salamander does not use standing 

surface water for any life stage. 

Respiration occurs through the skin, 

which requires a moist microclimate for 

gas exchange. The salamander spends 

much of its life underground; it can be 

found at the surface from July through 

September, when relative 

environmental conditions are warm and 

wet. When active at the surface, the 

species is usually found under decaying 

logs, rocks, bark, moss mats, or inside 

decomposing stumps. The salamander’s 

underground habitat appears to be deep, 

fractured, sub-surface rock in areas with 

high soil moisture (NMEST 2000, p. 2) 

where the geologic and moisture 

constraints likely limit the distribution 

of the species. Soil pH (acidity) may 

limit distribution as well. It is unknown 

whether the species forages or carries on 

any other activity below ground, 

although it is presumed that eggs are 

laid and hatch beneath the surface. 

The surface microhabitat temperature 

for 577 Jemez Mountains salamanders 

ranged from 6.0 to 17.0 degrees Celsius 

(°C) (43 to 63 degrees Fahrenheit (°F)), 

with a mean of 12.7 °C (54.9 °F) 

(Williams 1972, p. 18). Significantly 

more salamanders were observed under 

logs where temperatures are closest to 

the mean temperature (12.5 °C (54.5 °F)) 

than inside logs where temperatures 

deviated the most from the mean 

temperature (13.3 °C (55.9 °F)) 

(Williams 1972, p. 19). Changes to 

microhabitat temperatures are discussed 

under Factors A and E, below. 

Sexual maturity is attained at 3 to 4 

years in females and 3 years in males 

(Williams 1976, pp. 31, 35). 

Reproduction in the wild has not been 

observed; however, based on observed 

physiological changes, reproduction is 

believed to occur above ground between 

mid-July and mid-August (Williams 

1976, pp. 31-36). Based on examination 

of 57 female salamanders in the wild 

and one clutch of eggs laid in a 

laboratory setting, Williams (1978, p. 

475) concluded that females likely lay 7 

or 8 eggs every other year or every third 

year. Eggs are thought to be laid 

underground the spring after mating 

occurs (Williams 1978, p. 475). Fullyformed salamanders hatch from the 

eggs. The lifespan of the salamander in 

the wild is unknown; however, based on 

reproductive information that indicates 

the species is not sexually mature until 

age 3 or 4 years and that it only lays eggs 

every 2 or 3 years, and considering the 

estimated lifespan of other terrestrial 

plethodontid salamanders, we estimate 

that the species likely lives more than 

10 years. 

Salamander prey from above ground 

foraging is diverse in size and type, with 

ants, mites, and beetles being most 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54825 

important in the salamander’s diet 

(Cummer 2005, p. 43). Cummer (2005, 

pp. 45-50) found that specialization on 

invertebrate species was unlikely, but 

there was likely a preferential selection 

of prey. 

Overview of Survey Data 

Standardized survey protocols have 

been used for the salamander since 1987 

(NMDGF 2000, p. 2), but the number 

and location of surveys have been 

variable and opportunistic. Survey 

methods involve searching under 

potential cover objects (e.g., logs, rocks, 

bark, moss mats) and inside 

decomposing coniferous logs when 

environmental conditions are likely best 

for detecting surface-active salamanders, 

generally May through September, when 

summer monsoon rains occur. 

Unfortunately, methods for determining 

locations to survey salamanders over the 

past 20 years have not been systematic, 

and though we have conducted a 

comprehensive review, the data have 

not been consistently available to allow 

comparison of the status of the 

salamander over its entire range. 

Three survey protocols have been in 

use since 1987 (NMEST 2000b, pp. 27- 

29). Protocol A (presence or absence) 

has been used when attempting to 

determine whether an area is occupied 

(NMEST 2000b, p. 27). Following this 

protocol, surveys cease after 2 ‘‘personhours’’ of effort (e.g., one person 

searching for 2 hours or two people 

searching for 1 hour) or when the first 

salamander is observed, whichever 

comes first. Because the salamander 

utilizes underground habitat and an 

unknown number of individuals may be 

active at the surface, repeated surveys 

may be necessary to determine 

occupancy of a locality (NMEST 2000b, 

p. 27). 

Protocol B (population levels and 

trends) has been used for comparing 

plots, monitoring trends through time, 

or evaluating how salamander localities 

fluctuate in response to environmental 

variables (NMEST 2000b, p. 28). For this 

protocol, a survey is conducted for 2 

person-hours, with all salamanders 

tallied. 

Protocol C (detailed environmental 

data) collects microhabitat data to 

characterize potential salamander 

habitat (NMEST 2000b, p. 28). This 

protocol involves collecting data on 

important habitat features within a 50 m 

(160 ft) by 2 m (6.6 ft) transect, in 

addition to surveying for salamanders 

under cover objects. 

The rangewide population size of the 

salamander is also unknown. 

Monitoring the absolute abundance of 

plethodontid salamanders is inherently 

difficult because of the natural variation 

associated with surface activity (Hyde 

and Simons 2001, p. 624), which 

ultimately affects the probability of 

detecting a salamander. The probability 

of detection varies over space and time 

and is highly dependent upon the 

environmental and biological 

parameters that drive surface activity 

(Hyde and Simons 2001, p. 624). Given 

the known bias of detection 

probabilities and the inconsistent 

survey effort across years, population 

size estimates using existing data cannot 

be made accurately. 

Despite our inability to assess the 

rangewide population of the salamander 

in a comprehensive manner, the survey 

data are useful to understand that 

persistence of the salamander in 

localities may vary across the range of 

the species. For example, some 

localities where the salamander was 

once considered abundant or common 

(e.g., many parts of Unit 2, the Type 

Locality or the location where the 

salamander was originally found (Unit 

4), and VCNP-Old Beaver Pond (Unit 

5)), either the salamander no longer 

persists, or it persists at very low 

numbers. Alternatively, there are also 

three localities (Redondo Border, VCNP 

(Unit 5), and North East Slope VCNP 

(northern part of Unit 3)) where the 

salamander continues to be relatively 

abundant compared to most currently 

occupied sites. However, the numbers 

in these relatively abundant areas are far 

less than historic reports for the type 

locality, where 659 individuals were 

captured in a single year (1970), 394 of 

them in a single month (Williams 1976, 

p. 26). We know of no location where 

salamander abundance is similar to that 

observed in 1970. Overall, a few 

localized areas appear to be stable; 

however, there appears to be a 

decreasing trend within areas (decrease 

in numbers of salamanders observed 

during surveys) and a possible 

rangewide declining trend (an increase 

in the number of areas where 

salamanders were once present and 

have not been observed in recent 

surveys). The apparent declining trend 

is evident in Units 1 and 3, where we 

have the best survey information. 

Because it appears that the species is 

relatively long-lived, has relatively low 

reproductive output, has limited 

dispersal ability, and a small home 

range, it is likely that the apparent 

decreasing and declining trends both 

within localized areas and across the 

landscape represent actual declines in 

salamanders over the past 20 to 30 

years. 

Summary of Information Pertaining to 

the Five Factors 

Section 4 of the Act (U.S.C. 1533 et 

seq.) and implementing regulations (50 

CFR 424) set forth the procedures for 

adding species to the Federal Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act, a species may be determined to be 

endangered or threatened based on any 

of the following five factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

In considering what factors might 

constitute threats to the species, we 

must look beyond the exposure of the 

species to a factor to evaluate whether 

the species may respond to the factor in 

a way that causes actual impacts to the 

species. If there is exposure to a factor 

and the species responds negatively, the 

factor may be a threat and, during the 

subsequent status review, we attempt to 

determine how significant a threat it is. 

The threat is significant if it drives, or 

contributes to, the risk of extinction of 

the species such that the species may 

warrant listing as endangered or 

threatened as those terms are defined in 

the Act. However, the identification of 

factors that could impact a species 

negatively may not be sufficient to 

compel a finding that the information in 

the petition and our files is substantial. 

The information must include evidence 

sufficient to suggest that these factors 

may be operative threats that act on the 

species to the point that the species may 

meet the definition of endangered or 

threatened under the Act. 

In making this finding, information 

pertaining to the salamander in relation 

to the five factors provided in section 

4(a)(1) of the Act is discussed below. 

Factor A. Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or 

Range 

Under Factor A, we considered 

whether the Jemez Mountains 

salamander is threatened by the 

following: fire exclusion and severe 

wildland fires; forest composition and 

structure conversions; post-fire 

rehabilitation; forest and fire 

management (fire use, fire suppression, 

mechanical treatment of hazardous 

fuels, and forest silvicultural practices 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

54826 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(timber harvest, salvage logging, forest 

thinning, and forest restoration 

projects)); dams and mining; private 

(residential) development; geothermal 

development; roads, trails, and habitat 

fragmentation; recreation; and livestock 

grazing. 

Fire Exclusion and Severe Wildland 

Fires 

Fire exclusion and wildfire threaten 

the salamander. In the Jemez 

Mountains, the results of over 100 years 

of fire suppression and fire exclusion 

(along with cattle grazing and other 

stressors) have altered forest 

composition and structure and 

increased the threat of wildfire in 

Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

forests in semi-arid western interior 

forests (Belsky and Blumenthal 1997, p. 

318). Fire has been an important process 

in the Jemez Mountains for at least 

several thousand years (Allen 1989, p. 

69), indicating the salamander evolved 

with fire. Frequent, low-intensity, 

surface fires and patchy, small scale, 

high-intensity fires in the Jemez 

Mountains historically maintained 

salamander habitat. These fires spread 

widely through the grassy understory 

fuels, or erupted on very small scales. 

The natural fire intervals prior to the 

1900s ranged from 5 to 25 years across 

the Jemez Mountains (Allen 2001, p. 4). 

Dry mixed conifer forests burned on 

average every 12 years, whereas wet 

mixed conifer forests averaged every 20 

years. Historically, patchy surface fires 

within mixed conifer forests would have 

thinned stands and created natural fuel 

breaks that would limit the extent of 

fires. Still, in very dry years, there is 

evidence of fires occurring across entire 

watersheds, but they did not burn with 

high severity over entire mountain sides 

(Jemez Mountains Adaptive Planning 

Workshop Session II Final Notes 2010, 

p. 7). Aspen stands are evidence of 

historic patchy crown fires that 

represent the relatively small-scale, 

stand-replacing fires that have 

historically occurred in the Jemez 

Mountains, which are also associated 

with significantly dry years (Margolis et 

al. 2007, p. 2236). 

These historic fire patterns were 

interrupted in the late 1800s through the 

elimination of fine fuels as a result of 

livestock overgrazing and managed fire 

suppression. This interruption and 

exclusion of fire promoted the 

development of high forest stand 

densities with heavy accumulations of 

dead and downed fuel, and growth of 

ladder fuels (the dense mid-story trees 

that favor development of crown fires) 

(Allen 2001, pp. 5-6). In fact, fire 

exclusion in this area converted 

historically low- to moderate-severity 

fire regimes with small, patchy fires to 

high-severity, large-scale, standreplacing fires that have the potential to 

significantly destroy or degrade 

salamander habitat (USFS 2009a, pp. 8- 

9). The disruption of the natural cycle 

of fire and subsequent accumulation of 

continuous fuels within the coniferous 

forests on south and north-facing slopes 

has increased the chances of a severe 

wildfire affecting large areas of 

salamander habitat within the Jemez 

Mountains (e.g., see USFS 2009a, 

2009b). 

Prescribed fire at VCNP has been 

limited, with only one burn in 2004 that 

was described as creating a positive 

vegetation response (ENTRIX 2009, p. 

97). A prescribed fire plan is expected 

to be developed (ENTRIX 2009, p. 97), 

as there is concern for severe wildland 

fires to occur (Parmenter 2009, cited in 

Service 2010). The planned Scooter 

Peak prescribed burn between the VCNP 

and Bandelier National Monument is a 

fuel reduction project in occupied 

salamander habitat, but is small in scale 

(approximately 960 acres (ac) (390 

hectares (ha)) (ENTRIX 2009, p. 2). 

Although future thinning of secondary 

growth may somewhat lessen the risk of 

severe wildland fires in areas, these 

efforts are not likely at a sufficient 

geographic scale to lessen the overall 

threat to the salamander. 

The frequency of large-scale, highseverity, stand-replacing wildland fires 

has increased in the latter part of the 

20th century in the Jemez Mountains. 

This increase is due to landscape-wide 

buildup of woody fuels associated with 

removal of grassy fuels from extreme 

year-round livestock overgrazing in the 

late 1800s, and subsequent fire 

suppression (Allen 1989, pp. 94-97; 

2001, pp. 5-6). The majority of wildfires 

over the past 20 years has exhibited 

crown fire behavior and burned in the 

direction of the prevailing south or 

southwest winds (USFS 2009a, p. 17). 

The first severe wildland fire in the 

Jemez Mountains was the La Mesa Fire 

in 1977, burning 15,400 ac (6,250 ha). 

Subsequent fires included the Buchanon 

Fire in 1993 (11,543 ac (4,671 ha)), the 

Dome Fire in 1996 (16,516 ac (6,684 

ha)), the Oso Fire in 1997 (6,508 ac 

(2,634 ha)), the Cerro Grande Fire in 

2000 (42,970 ac (17,390 ha)), and the 

Lakes Fire Complex (Lakes and BMG 

Fires) in 2002 (4,026 ac (1,629 ha)) 

(Cummer 2005, pp. 3-4). Over the past 

15 years, severe wildland fires have 

burned about 36 percent of modeled or 

known salamander habitat on USFS 

lands (USFS 2009, p. 1). Following the 

Cerro Grande Fire, the General 

Accounting Office reported that these 

conditions are common in much of the 

western part of the United States 

turning areas into a ‘‘virtual tinderbox’’ 

(General Accounting Office 2000, p. 15). 

The threat of severe wildland fires to 

salamander habitat remains high due to 

the tons of dead and down fuel, 

overcrowded tree conditions leading to 

poor forest health, and dense thickets of 

small-diameter trees. There is a 36 

percent probability of having at least 

one large fire of 4,000 ac (over 1,600 ha) 

every year for the next 20 years in the 

southwest Jemez Mountains (USFS 

2009a, p. 19). Moreover, the probability 

of exceeding this estimated threshold of 

4,000 ac (1,600 ha) burned in the same 

time period is 65 percent (USFS 2009a, 

p. 19). As an example of the severe fire 

risk, the Thompson Ridge-San Antonio 

area, in Unit 1, has extensive ladder 

fuels and surface fuels estimated at over 

20 tons per acre, and the understory in 

areas contains over 800 dense sapling 

trees per acre within the mixed conifer 

and Ponderosa pine stands (USFS 

2009a, pp. 24-25). The canyon 

topography aligns with south winds and 

steep slopes, making this area more 

susceptible to crown fire (USFS 2009a, 

pp. 24-25). 

Increases in soil and microhabitat 

temperatures, which generally increase 

with increasing burn severity, can have 

profound effects on salamander 

behavior and physiology, and thus their 

ability to persist subsequent to severe 

wildland fires. Following the Cerro 

Grande Fire, soil temperatures were 

recorded under potential salamander 

cover objects in areas occupied by the 

salamander (Cummer and Painter 2007, 

pp. 26-37). Soil temperatures in areas of 

high severity burn exceeded the 

salamander’s thermal tolerance, which 

would have resulted in the death of any 

salamanders present (Spotila 1972, p. 

97; Cummer and Painter 2007, pp. 28- 

31). Even in moderate and high-severity 

burned areas where fires did not result 

in the death of salamanders, the 

microhabitat conditions, such as those 

occurring during the Cerro Grande 

Wildfire, would limit the timing and 

duration that the salamanders could be 

surface active (feeding and mating). 

Moreover, elevated temperatures lead to 

increases in oxygen consumption, heart 

rate, and metabolic rate, resulting in 

decreased body water and body mass 

(Whitford 1968, pp. 247-251). 

Physiological stress from elevated 

temperatures may also increase 

susceptibility to disease and parasites. 

Effects from temperature increases are 

discussed in greater detail under Factor 

E. 

Severe wildland fires typically 

increase soil pH, which could affect the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54827 

salamander. In one study of the Jemez 

Mountains salamander, soil pH was the 

single best indicator of relative 

abundance of salamanders at a site 

(Ramotnik 1988, pp. 24-25). Sites with 

salamanders had a pH of 6.6 (± 0.08) 

and sites without salamanders had a pH 

of 6.2 (± 0.06). In another species of a 

terrestrial plethodontid salamander, the 

red-backed salamander (Plethodon 

cinereus), soil pH influences and limits 

its distribution and occurrence as well 

as its oxygen consumption rates and 

growth rates (Wyman and HawksleyLescault 1987, p. 1823). Similarly, 

Frisbie and Wyman (1991, p. 1050) 

found the disruption of sodium balance 

by acidic conditions in three species of 

terrestrial salamanders. A low pH 

substrate can also reduce body sodium, 

body water levels, and body mass 

(Frisbie and Wyman 1991, p. 1050). 

Changes in soil pH following wildfire 

likely impact the salamander either by 

making the habitat less suitable or 

through physiological stress. 

Several regulatory attempts have been 

made to address and correct the altered 

ecological balance of New Mexico’s 

forests resulting from a century of fire 

suppression, logging, and livestock 

grazing. Congress enacted the 

Community Forest Restoration Act to 

promote healthy watersheds and reduce 

the threat of large, high-intensity 

wildfires; insect infestation; and disease 

in the forests in New Mexico (H.R. 2389, 

Public Law 106-393). The subsequent 

Omnibus Public Land Management Act, 

also called the ‘‘Forest Landscape 

Restoration Act’’ (Title, IV, Public Law 

III-II, 2009), established a national 

program that encourages ecological, 

economic, and social sustainability and 

utilization of forest restoration 

byproducts to benefit local rural 

economies and improve forest health. 

As a result, the Santa Fe National Forest 

is preparing the Southwest Jemez 

Mountains Landscape Assessment that, 

if funded, may reduce the threat of 

severe wildland fire in Units 1 and 4 of 

the salamander’s range over the next 10 

years (USFS 2009, p. 2). However, 

funding of this project is not certain, nor 

is it likely to address the short-term risk 

of severe wildland fire; thus, the 

efficacy of this program is unsure. 

We are not aware of any recently 

completed or currently funded largescale projects to address the risk of 

severe wildland fire on the Jemez 

Ranger District of the Santa Fe National 

Forest. Thinning and burning activities 

in the Southwest Jemez Restoration 

Assessment area have ranged from 12 ac 

(5 ha) to about 7,100 ac (2,900 ha) since 

1989 (USFS 2009f, pp. 16-18). Still, 

most of these activities have focused on 

Ponderosa pine, with precommercial 

thinning (removing trees less than 9 

inches (in) (23 centimeters (cm)) in 

diameter at breast height (dbh)) 

occurring on only 6,000 ac (2,400 ha) 

since 1986 (USFS 2009f, p. 18). Many of 

the forest stands remain densely 

stocked, creating multi-tiered fuels that 

add to crown fire risk. As such, the 

limited scale of these thinning and 

burning activities has not reduced the 

overall risk of severe crown fire in the 

area (e.g., see USFS 2009, 2009a, 2009b). 

The existing risk of wildfire on the 

VCNP and surrounding areas is 

uncharacteristically high and is a 

significant departure from historic 

conditions over 100 years ago (VCNP 

2010, p. 3.1; Allen 1989, pp. ii-346; 

2001, pp. 1-10). Therefore, it is highly 

probable that the overall risk of severe 

wildland fire will not be significantly 

reduced or eliminated on USFS lands, 

National Park Service lands, the VCNP, 

or surrounding lands in the foreseeable 

future. 

Since 1977, these severe wildland 

fires have significantly degraded 

important features of salamander habitat 

including removal of tree canopy and 

shading, increases of soil temperature, 

decreases of soil moisture, increased 

pH, loss or reduction of soil organic 

matter, reduced porosity, and short-term 

creation of water-repelling soils. These 

and other effects limit the amount of 

available surface habitat and the timing 

and duration when salamanders can be 

surface active, which negatively impacts 

salamander behavior (e.g., foraging and 

mating). For these reasons, severe 

wildland fires have led to a reduction in 

the quality and quantity of the available 

salamander habitat rangewide. For this 

reason, the USFS believes, and we 

concur, that habitat loss from extensive, 

stand-replacing wildland fire threatens 

the salamander (USFS 2009c, p. 1). 

These effects will likely continue into 

the foreseeable future because we do not 

anticipate large-scale changes to funding 

or initiation of projects that would 

significantly alleviate the currently high 

risk of wildfire. Therefore, we believe 

that fire exclusion and suppression has 

substantially affected the salamander 

and this trend is expected to continue. 

Forest Composition and Structure 

Conversions 

Changes in forest composition and 

structure threaten the salamander by 

directly altering soil moisture, soil 

temperature, soil pH, relative humidity, 

and air temperature. With an increase of 

small-diameter trees on the Jemez 

Mountains, there is an increase in 

demand for water required for 

evapotranspiration, which in turn can 

lead to increased drying of the soil. 

Limited water leads to drought-stressed 

trees, and increases their susceptibility 

to burning, insects, and disease. This is 

especially true on south-facing slopes, 

where less moisture is available or 

during times of earlier snowmelt. 

Furthermore, reduced soil moisture may 

disrupt surface activities of salamanders 

(e.g., foraging) or alter prey availability. 

The degree of these impacts is currently 

unknown; however, alteration of forest 

composition and structure contribute to 

increased risk of forest die-offs from 

disease and insects throughout the range 

of the salamander (USFS 2002, pp. 11- 

13; 2009d, p. 1; 2009a, pp. 8-9; 2010, pp. 

1-11; Allen 2001, p. 6). We find that the 

interrelated contributions from changes 

in vegetation to large-scale, highseverity wildfire and forest die-offs are 

of a significant magnitude across the 

range of the species (e.g., see ‘‘Fire 

Exclusion and Severe Wildland Fires’’ 

section, above), and in addition to 

continued predicted future changes to 

forested habitat within the range of the 

species, threaten the salamander. 

Preliminary data collected from the 

VCNP indicates that an increase in the 

amount of tree canopy cover in an area 

influences the amount of snow that is 

able to reach the ground, and can 

decrease the amount of soil moisture 

and infiltration (Enquist et al. 2009, p. 

8). On the VCNP, 95 percent of 

coniferous forests have thick canopy 

cover with heavy understory fuels 

(VCNP 2010, pp. 3.3-3.4; USFS 2009a, p. 

9). In these areas, snow accumulates in 

the tree canopy over winter, and in the 

spring can quickly evaporate without 

reaching or infiltrating the soil. For this 

reason, recent increases in canopy 

cover, resulting from fire exclusion and 

suppression, could be having significant 

drying effects on salamander habitat and 

threaten the salamander now and in the 

foreseeable future. 

Post-fire Rehabilitation 

Post-fire management practices are 

often needed to restore forest dynamics 

(Beschta et al. 2004, p. 957). In 1971, 

USFS was given formal authority by 

Congress for Burn Area Emergency 

Rehabilitation (BAER) (Robichaud et al. 

2000, p. 1) and integrated the evaluation 

of fire severity, funding request 

procedures, and treatment options. 

Treatment options implemented by 

USFS and BAER teams include hillslope 

treatments (grass seeding, contour-felled 

logs, mulch, and other methods to 

reduce surface runoff and keep post-fire 

soil in place, such as tilling, temporary 

fencing, erosion control fabric, straw 

wattles, lopping, and scattering of slash) 

and channel treatments (straw bale 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

54828 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

check dams, log check dams, rock dams, 

and rock cage dams (gabions)) 

(Robichaud et al. 2000, pp. 11-21). 

Rehabilitation actions following the 

Cerro Grande fire in salamander habitat 

included heavy equipment and 

bulldozer operation, felling trees for 

safety reasons, mulching with straw and 

placement of straw bales, cutting and 

trenching trees (contour felling and 

securing on slope), hand and aerial 

seeding, and aerial hydromulch (wet 

mulch with fertilizer and seed) (USFS 

2001, p. 1). Some contour felling is 

likely beneficial for the salamander 

post-fire because it can slow erosion 

and, in cases where surface rocks are 

not present or present in low numbers, 

the logs can also provide immediate 

cover. Following the Cerro Grande Fire, 

the BAER Team recommended felling 

large-diameter Douglas fir logs and 

cutting four disks off each log (rounds) 

to provide immediate cover for 

salamanders before summer rains 

(Interagency BAER Team 2000, p. 87; 

USFS 2001, p. 1). It remains unknown 

if these measures are effective, but they 

probably benefit the salamander in the 

short term. Alternatively, some post-fire 

treatments (e.g., grass seeding, tilling, 

erosion control fabrics, and removal of 

surface rocks to build rock dams) likely 

negatively impact the salamander. The 

most common BAER treatment is grass 

seeding dropped from aircraft 

(Robichaud et al. 2000, p. 11). This 

treatment is inexpensive, rapidly 

increases water infiltration, and 

stabilizes soil (Robichaud et al. 2000, p. 

11). Nonnative grasses are typically 

seeded because they are fast-growing 

and have extensive fibrous roots 

(Robichaud et al. 2000, p. 11). 

Nevertheless, these nonnative grasses 

have created thick mats that are 

impenetrable to the salamander because 

the species has short legs and cannot dig 

tunnels. The existing spaces in the soil 

fill with extensive roots, altering the 

sub-surface habitat in a manner that is 

unusable to the salamander. Finally, 

grass seeds can also contain fertilizer 

that is broadcast over large areas of 

habitat (e.g., hydromulch used in postfire treatments for the Cerro Grande 

Fire). Fertilizers can contain nitrate, 

which is toxic to amphibians at certain 

levels (Rouse et al. 1999, p. 799). While 

the effects of seeding with nonnative 

grasses and the use of fertilizers on 

salamanders have not been specifically 

studied, this action has likely caused 

widespread adverse impacts to the 

salamander. Because this action is a 

common post-fire treatment, it will 

likely continue to negatively impact 

salamander localities from both past and 

future treatments. 

In summary, some post-fire treatments 

could benefit the salamander, such as 

some contour felling of logs. Additional 

measures, such as cutting and scattering 

rounds, can also benefit the salamander. 

However, other post-fire treatments 

negatively impact the salamander. 

Small-scale impacts could occur from 

removing rocks from habitat to build 

rock dams, and large-scale impacts 

include grass seeding and associated 

chemicals. We conclude that while the 

effects of high-severity, stand-replacing 

wildfire, also referred to as severe 

wildland fires, are the most significant 

threat to the salamander, actions taken 

subsequent to the wildfires could 

determine whether the salamander will 

persist in or return to those areas. We 

therefore find that post-fire 

rehabilitation treatments are currently a 

threat to the salamander, and are 

expected to continue in the future. 

Fire Use 

Fire use includes the combination of 

wildland fire use (the management of 

naturally ignited wildland fires to 

accomplish specific resource 

management objectives) and prescribed 

fire (any fire ignited by management 

actions to meet specific objectives) 

applications to meet natural resource 

objectives (USFS 2010b, p. 1). Fire use 

can benefit the salamander in the long 

term by reducing the risk of severe 

wildland fires and by returning the 

natural fire cycle to the ecosystem. 

Alternatively, other practices such as 

broadcast burning (i.e., conducting 

prescribed fires over large areas) 

consume ground litter that helps to 

create moist conditions and stabilize 

soil and rocky slopes. Depending on 

time of year, fire use can also impact the 

salamander if the species is active on 

the surface, which is typically from July 

to September. Conditions for 

salamander surface activity (wet) are 

often not conducive to fire. Prescribed 

fire in the Jemez Mountains is often 

planned for the fall (when the 

salamanders are not active), because low 

wind and increased moisture during 

this time allow more control, lowering 

chances of the fire’s escape. Because fire 

historically occurred prior to July (i.e., 

pre-monsoon rains), the majority of fires 

likely preceded surface activity. 

Prescribed fires conducted after 

September, when salamanders typically 

return to their underground retreats, 

would be similar to a natural fire regime 

in the spring with low direct impacts 

because most salamanders are 

subsurface. However, it is unknown 

what the indirect impacts to the 

salamander would be by altering the 

time of year when fire is present on the 

landscape. 

Other impacts to the salamander from 

fire use can include digging fire lines, 

targeting the reduction of large 

decomposing logs, and chemical use 

(such as flares and fire retardant) in 

salamander habitat. Some impacts to the 

salamander can be avoided through 

seasonal timing of prescribed burns and 

modifying objectives (e.g., leaving large 

diameter logs, greater canopy cover) and 

techniques (e.g., not using flares or 

chemicals) of the prescribed fire in 

salamander habitat (Cummer 2005, pp. 

2-7). As part of the Southwest Jemez 

Restoration Project proposal, the Santa 

Fe National Forest has set specific goals 

pertaining to the salamander including 

reduction of the risk of high-intensity 

wildfire in salamander habitat and 

retention of a moisture regime that will 

sustain high-quality salamander habitat 

(USFS 2009a, p. 11). The Santa Fe 

National Forest intends to minimize 

impacts to the salamander and to work 

towards its recovery (USFS 2009, p. 4), 

but specific actions or recommendations 

to accomplish this goal have not yet 

been determined. If the salamander is 

not considered, fire use could make its 

habitat less suitable (warmer; drier; 

fewer large, decomposing logs) and kill 

or injure salamanders that are surface 

active. Alternatively, the species may 

benefit if seasonal restrictions and 

maintaining key habitat features (e.g., 

large logs and sufficient canopy cover to 

maintain moist microhabitats) are part 

of managing the fire. Given the current 

condition of forest composition and 

structure, the risks of severe wildland 

fire on a large geographic scale will take 

a long-term planning strategy. Fire use 

is critical to the long-term protection of 

the salamander’s habitat, although some 

practices are not beneficial to the 

species and may threaten the 

salamander. 

Fire Suppression Activities 

Similarly, fire suppression activities 

both protect and negatively impact the 

salamander or its habitat. For example, 

fire suppression actions that occurred in 

salamander habitat during the Cerro 

Grande Fire included hand line 

construction, backfiring with the 

capacity of burning off heavy ground 

cover, fire retardant drops, and 

bulldozer line (USFS 2001, p. 1). Water 

dropping from helicopters is another 

fire suppression technique used in the 

Jemez Mountains, where water is 

collected from accessible streams, 

ponds, or stock tanks. By dropping 

surface water into terrestrial habitat, 

there is a significant increased risk of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54829 

spreading aquatic pathogens into 

terrestrial habitats (see Factor C, 

Disease). 

Fire retardants and fire fighting foams 

are addressed under Factor E. Fire 

suppression actions including the use of 

fire retardants, water dropping, 

backfiring, and fire line construction 

likely impact the salamander; however, 

the magnitude of impacts from fire 

suppression remains unknown, and we 

do not have enough information at this 

time to determine if fire suppression 

actions threaten the salamander. 

However, these activities improve the 

chances of quick fire suppression and 

would be relatively smaller in scale and 

could have fewer impacts than a severe 

wildland fire. Therefore, we do not find 

that fire suppression activities are a 

threat to the salamander, nor do we 

expect them to become a threat in the 

future. 

Mechanical Treatment of Hazardous 

Fuels 

Mechanical treatment of hazardous 

fuels refers to the process of grinding or 

chipping vegetation (trees and shrubs) 

to meet forest management objectives. 

When these treatments are used, 

resprouting vegetation often grows back 

in a few years, if the area is not 

maintained through prescribed fire. 

Mechanical treatment may include the 

use of heavy equipment or manual 

equipment to cut vegetation (trees and 

shrubs) and to scrape slash and other 

debris into piles for burning or 

mastication. Mastication equipment 

uses a cutting head attached to an 

overhead boom to grind, chip, or crush 

wood into smaller pieces and is able to 

treat vegetation on slopes up to 35 to 45 

percent while generally having little 

ground impact (soil compaction or 

disturbance). The debris is left on the 

ground where it decomposes and 

provides erosion protection or it is 

burned after drying out. 

Mechanical treatment of hazardous 

fuels such as manual or machine 

thinning (chipping and mastication) 

may cause localized disturbances to the 

forest structure that can impact the 

salamander. For example, removal of 

overstory tree canopy or ground cover 

within salamander habitat may cause 

desiccation of soil or rocky substrates. 

Additionally, tree-felling or use of heavy 

equipment has the potential to disturb 

the substrate, resulting in 

destabilization of talus and compaction 

of soil, which may reduce sub-surface 

interstices used by salamanders as 

refuges or for their movements. 

Similarly, if salamanders are surface 

active, any of these activities could 

crush salamanders present under 

surface cover objects (through use of 

heavy equipment or heavy foot traffic). 

Also of concern is soil compaction 

from the use of heavy equipment. The 

masticator largely operated on skid 

trails (temporary trails used to transport 

trees, logs, or other forest products), and 

mastication did not increase soil 

compaction, because the machinery 

traveled on trails covered with 

masticated materials (wood chips, etc.), 

which more evenly distributed the 

weight of the machinery and reduced 

soil compaction (Moghaddas and 

Stephens 2008, p. 3104). Activities that 

compact soil, remove excessive canopy 

cover, or are conducted while 

salamanders are surface active would be 

detrimental to the salamander and its 

habitat. If mechanical treatment and 

hazardous fuels activities are conducted 

in a manner that minimizes impacts to 

the salamander while reducing the risk 

of severe wildland fire, the salamander 

could ultimately benefit from the 

reduction in the threat of severe 

wildland fire and the improvement in 

the structure and composition of the 

forest. While mechanical treatments 

likely impact a few individual 

salamanders, we do not have enough 

information at this time to determine 

whether mechanical treatments threaten 

the species. 

Forest Silvicultural Practices 

Forest silvicultural practices (the care 

and cultivation of forest trees) threaten 

the salamander. Many areas of the 

landscape in the Jemez Mountains has 

been fragmented by past commercial 

(trees greater than 9 in (23 cm) dbh) and 

pre-commercial (trees less than 9 in (23 

cm) dbh) timber harvesting. Much of the 

forests of the Jemez Mountains lack 

large-diameter trees and have become 

overgrown with small-diameter trees. 

Salamander localities are found 

generally within the intact stands of 

mature forest, but can still be found in 

areas where evidence of logging exists. 

We assessed whether timber harvest 

(logging) or salvage logging threaten the 

salamander. 

From 1935 to 1972, logging 

(particularly clear-cut logging) was 

conducted on VCNP (ENTRIX 2009, p. 

164). These timber activities resulted in 

about 50 percent of VCNP being logged, 

with over 1,600 kilometers (km) (1,000 

miles (mi)) of 1960s era logging roads 

(ENTRIX 2009, p. 164) being built in 

winding and spiraling patterns around 

hills (ENTRIX 2009, pp. 59-60). On the 

VCNP, 95 percent of forest stands 

contain dense thickets of small-diameter 

trees (VCNP 2010, pp. 3.3-3.4). This 

multi-tiered forest structure is similar to 

surrounding areas and provides ladder 

fuels that favor the development of 

crown fires (Allen 2001, pp. 5-6; USFS 

2009a, p. 10). Additionally, all forest 

types on the VCNP contain very few 

late-stage mature trees greater than 16 in 

(41 cm) dbh (less than 10 percent of the 

overall cover) (VCNP 2010, pp. 3.4, 3.6- 

3.23). The lack of large trees is an 

artifact of intense logging, mostly from 

clear-cutting practices in the 1960s 

(VCNP 2010, p. 3.4), and we believe this 

to be similar for surrounding forests. 

Clear-cutting degrades forest floor 

microhabitats by eliminating shading 

and leaf litter, increasing soil surface 

temperature, and reducing moisture 

(Petranka 1998, p. 16). 

In a comparison of four logged sites 

and five unlogged sites in Jemez 

Mountains salamander habitat, 

Ramotnik (1986, p. 8) reports that a total 

of 47 salamanders were observed at four 

of the five unlogged sites, while no 

salamanders were observed on any of 

the logged sites. It is unclear whether 

salamanders were observed at the sites 

prior to logging, but significant 

differences in habitat features (soil pH, 

litter depth, and log size) between the 

logged and unlogged sites are reported. 

On the unlogged sites, salamanders 

were associated with cover objects that 

were closer together and more decayed, 

and that had a higher canopy cover, 

greater moss and lichen cover, and 

lower surrounding needle cover, 

compared to cover objects on logged 

sites (Ramotnik 1986, p. 8). Cover 

objects on logged sites were less 

decomposed and accessible by the 

salamanders, had a shallower 

surrounding litter depth, and were 

associated with a more acidic soil than 

were cover objects on the unlogged sites 

(Ramotnik 1986, p. 8). 

Consistent with the findings of 

Ramotnik (1986, p. 8), deMaynadier and 

Hunter (1995; in Olson et al. 2009, p. 6) 

reviewed 18 studies and found that 

salamander abundance after timber 

harvest was 3.5 times greater on controls 

than in clear-cut areas. Furthermore, 

Petranka et al. (1993; in Olson et al. 

2009, p. 6) found that Plethodon 

abundance and richness in mature forest 

were five times higher than those in 

recent clear cuts, and they estimated 

that it would take as much as 50 to 70 

years for clearcut populations to return 

to pre-clearcut levels. In the Jemez 

Mountains, historic clearcut logging 

practices likely led to significant habitat 

loss for the salamander with effects that 

continue today. 

The majority of salamander habitat 

has been heavily logged, which has 

resulted in changes in stand structure 

and a paucity of large-diameter trees. 

This lack of large-diameter trees means 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

54830 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

that there is a limited source for future 

large, decomposing logs needed for 

high-quality salamander habitat. 

Ramotnik (1986, p. 12) reports that logs 

with salamanders present were 

significantly larger and wetter than 

those without salamanders. Further, 

most salamanders were found in well 

decomposed logs. In a similar 

plethodontid salamander, large logs 

provide refuge from warmer 

temperatures and resiliency from 

impacts that can warm and dry habitat 

(Kluber et al. 2009, p. 31). 

On the VCNP, only minor selective 

logging has occurred since 1972, and it 

is expected that some thinning of 

second growth forests will continue to 

occur to prevent severe wildfires. 

However, no commercial logging is 

proposed or likely in the foreseeable 

future (Parmenter 2009b, cited in 

Service 2010). Although commercial 

timber harvest on the Santa Fe National 

Forest has declined appreciably since 

1988 (Fink 2008, pp. 9, 19), the effects 

from historical logging and associated 

roads will continue to threaten the 

salamander and are expected to 

continue in the foreseeable future. 

Salvage cutting (logging) removes 

dead, dying, damaged, or deteriorating 

trees while the wood is still 

merchantable (Wegner 1984, p. 421). 

Sanitation cutting, similar to salvage, 

removes the same kinds of trees as well 

as those susceptible to attack, but for the 

purpose of reducing the spread of biotic 

pests (Wegner 1984, p. 421). Both types 

of cutting are used in salamander 

habitat, and are referred to as ‘‘salvage 

logging.’’ Salvage logging is a common 

response to forest disturbance 

(Lindenmayer et al. 2008, p. 4) and, in 

salamander habitat, is most likely to 

occur after a forest die-off resulting from 

fire, disease, insects, or drought. The 

purposes for salvage logging in the 

Jemez Mountains have included 

firewood for local use, timber for small 

and large mills, salvage before economic 

decay, creation of diverse healthy and 

productive timber stands, management 

of stands to minimize insect and disease 

losses (USFS 1996, p. 4), and recovery 

of the timber value of fire-killed trees 

(USFS 2003, p. 1). When conducted in 

salamander habitat, it can further reduce 

the quality of the habitat remaining after 

the initial disturbance by removing or 

reducing the shading afforded by dead 

standing trees (Moeur and Guthrie 1984, 

p. 140) and future salamander cover 

objects (removal of trees precludes their 

recruitment to the forest floor), and by 

interfering with habitat recovery 

(Lindenmayer et al. 2008, p. 13). 

Recent salvage logging within the 

range of the salamander occurred 

following the Lakes and BMG Wildfire. 

The USFS stated that mitigation 

measures for the Lakes and BMG 

Wildfire Timber Salvage Project would 

further protect the salamander and 

enhance salamander habitat by 

immediately providing slash and down 

logs (USFS 2003, pp. 4-5). Mitigation for 

the salvage logging project included 

conducting activities during winter to 

avoid soil compaction, and providing 

for higher snag retention (by leaving all 

Douglas fir trees (16 percent fire-killed 

trees) and 10 percent of other large 

snags) to provide future down log 

habitat (USFS 2003, p. 29). These 

mitigation measures were developed in 

consultation with NMEST in an effort to 

minimize impacts to salamander from 

salvage logging; however, NMEST 

recommended that salvage logging be 

excluded from occupied salamander 

habitat because it was not clear that 

even with the additional mitigations 

that it would meet the conservation 

objectives of the Cooperative 

Management Plan (NMEST 2003, p. 1). 

The mitigation measures would likely 

benefit the salamander in the short term 

if conducted without salvage logging. It 

is not known if mitigation measures 

offset the impacts of salvage logging in 

salamander habitat; however, 

Lindenmayer et al. (2008, p. 13) reports 

that salvage logging interferes with 

natural ecological recovery and may 

increase the likelihood and intensity of 

subsequent fires. We believe that 

removal of trees limits the amount of 

future cover and allows additional 

warming and drying of habitat. The 

potential for large-scale forest die-offs 

from wildfire, insect outbreak, disease, 

or drought is high in the Jemez 

Mountains (see Factors A and E), which 

may result in future salvage logging in 

salamander habitat in the foreseeable 

future. We believe that salvage logging 

in salamander habitat further 

diminishes habitat quality and may be 

a determining factor of salamander 

persistence subsequent to forest die-off. 

Some timber harvest activities likely 

pose no threat to the salamander. For 

example, removal of hazard trees may 

have minimal disturbance to 

surrounding soils or substrates, 

especially if removal is conducted when 

the species is not surface-active (i.e., 

seasonal restrictions). This type of 

localized impact may affect a few 

individuals but is not likely to affect a 

population or be considered a threat. 

Likewise, precommercial thinning 

(removal of trees less than 9 in (22.9 cm) 

dbh) or shrub and brush removal 

(without the use of herbicides) to 

control vegetation, and without 

disturbing or compacting large areas of 

the surrounding soils, likely could be 

conducted without adverse effects on 

the salamander. 

In summary, current commercial 

logging levels are very low and do not 

threaten the salamander. Because most 

of the high-quality, large-diameter trees 

have been removed from the Jemez 

Mountains, we believe that commercial 

logging levels will remain low for the 

foreseeable future. Nevertheless, 

impacts from past commercial logging 

activities continue to have detrimental 

effects to the salamander and its habitat. 

These past activities removed largediameter trees, removed forest canopy, 

created roads, compacted soil, and 

disturbed other important habitat 

features. These effects of historic logging 

include the warming and drying of 

habitat, and no source for future large 

cover objects (decomposing logs) that 

contribute to habitat complexity and 

resiliency. Salvage logging further 

diminishes salamander habitat 

subsequent to disturbance. Therefore, 

we conclude that the salamander 

continues to be threatened by forest 

silvicultural practices, including salvage 

logging, and we expect that these 

practices and the resulting threats to the 

species will continue in the future. 

Dams 

Following the 2000 Cerro Grande Fire, 

water retention dams were constructed 

within potential salamander habitat to 

minimize soil erosion within burned 

areas (NMDGF 2001, p. 1; NMEST 2002, 

pp.1-2; Kutz 2002, p. 1). Surveys were 

not conducted prior to construction, and 

we do not know if the areas were 

occupied by salamanders, but the areas 

are in the vicinity of occupied 

salamander habitat. Because these types 

of structures were installed to slow 

erosion subsequent to wildfire, 

additional dams or flood control 

features could be constructed within 

salamander habitat in the foreseeable 

future following severe wildland fires. 

Some individual salamanders may be 

killed or injured by this activity; 

however, the impact to the species and 

habitat from construction of retention 

dams would be relatively minor. For 

this reason, we do not consider the 

construction of dams to currently be a 

significant threat to the salamander, nor 

do we expect dam construction to be a 

threat to the species in the future. 

Mining 

Pumice mining activities (e.g., Copar 

Pumice Company, the Copar South Pit 

Pumice Mine, and the El Cajete Pumice 

Mine) have been evaluated for impacts 

to the salamander (USFS 1995, pp. 1-14; 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54831 

1996, pp. 1-3). Pumice mines are located 

within areas of volcanic substrate that 

are unlikely to support salamanders 

(USFS 2009c, p. 2). However, associated 

infrastructure from expansion of the El 

Cajete Mine, such as access roads and 

heavy equipment staging areas, may 

have the potential to be located in 

potential salamander habitat. Although 

no decision on authorizing the 

extension to the El Cajete Mine has been 

made (USFS 2009. p. 2), these activities 

would be small in scale and not likely 

considered a threat to the species, either 

currently or in the future. 

Private (Residential) Development 

Private property development 

threatens the salamander. Although the 

majority of salamander habitat is located 

on Federally managed lands, private 

land contains substantially sized, 

contiguous areas of salamander habitat. 

Additionally, some areas with 

salamander habitat on the Santa Fe 

National Forest could be developed for 

private use (as proposed in USFS 1997, 

pp. 1-4; USFS 1998, pp. 1-2). 

Development can destroy and fragment 

habitat through the construction of 

homes and associated infrastructure 

(e.g., roads, driveways, and buildings), 

making those areas unusable to 

salamanders and likely resulting in 

mortalities to salamanders within those 

areas. These activities have reduced the 

quantity and quality of salamander 

habitat primarily within the southern 

part of Unit 1, the central and eastern 

parts of Unit 3, and large inholdings in 

Unit 4. As the human population 

continues to increase in New Mexico, 

we believe development will likely 

continue to directly affect the 

salamander within these units in the 

foreseeable future. These activities will 

likely be in the form of new housing and 

associated roads and infrastructure. 

Because development occurs, or is 

likely to occur, in part of the range of 

the salamander, and because we 

anticipate the continuing loss and 

degradation of habitat in these areas, we 

determine that private property 

development currently threatens the 

salamander, and this threat will 

continue in the future. 

Geothermal Development 

Geothermal development does not 

threaten the salamander. A large 

volcanic complex in the Jemez 

Mountains is the only known hightemperature geothermal resource in 

New Mexico (Fleischmann 2006, p. 27). 

Geothermal energy was explored for 

possible development on the VCNP 

between 1959 and 1983 (USFS 2007, p. 

126). In July 1978, the U.S. Department 

of Energy, Union Oil Company of 

California (Unocal), and the Public 

Service Company of New Mexico began 

a cooperative geothermal energy project 

(USFS 2007, p. 126). The demonstration 

project drilled 20 exploratory wells over 

the next 4 years. One of the geothermal 

development locations was south of 

Redondo Peak on the VCNP, and the 

canyon in this area was occupied by the 

salamander (Sabo 1980, pp. 2-4). An 

Environmental Impact Statement 

analyzed a variety of alternatives, 

including placement of transmission 

towers and lines (U.S. Department of 

Energy cited in Sabo 1980, pp. 2-5). 

Nevertheless, the project ended in 

January 1982, because Unocal’s 

predictions concerning the size of 

geothermal resources were not met. Out 

of the 40 wells drilled in the Valles 

Caldera in the Redondo Creek and 

Sulphur Springs areas, only a few 

yielded sufficient resources to be 

considered production wells (USFS 

2007, p. 126). In some cases, primarily 

in Unit 5, this occurred in salamander 

habitat and concrete well pads were 

built. Although the geothermal 

resources are found within the range of 

the salamander in the Jemez Mountains, 

extraction of large quantities of hot 

fluids from these rocks has proven 

difficult and not commercially viable 

(USFS 2007, p. 127). As such, we are 

not aware of any current or future plans 

to construct large or small-scale 

geothermal power production projects 

within salamander habitat. Moreover, in 

2006, the mineral rights on the VCNP 

were condemned, including geothermal 

resources (VallesCaldera.com 2010, p. 

1). For these reasons, geothermal 

development does not present a current 

or foreseeable threat to the salamander. 

Roads, Trails, and Habitat 

Fragmentation 

Roads, trails, and habitat 

fragmentation have had significant 

detrimental impacts that threaten the 

salamander now and in the foreseeable 

future. Construction of roads and trails 

has historically eliminated or reduced 

the quality or quantity of salamander 

habitat, reducing blocks of native 

vegetation to isolated fragments and 

creating a matrix of native habitat 

islands that have been altered by 

varying degrees from their natural state. 

Allen (1989, pp. 46, 54, 163, 216-242, 

and 302) collected and analyzed 

changes in road networks (railroads, 

paved roads, improved roads, dirt roads, 

and primitive roads) in the Jemez 

Mountains from 1935 to 1981. 

Landscape-wide road density increased 

11.75 times from 0.382 km (0.237 mi) of 

road per square km (0.386 square mi) in 

1935 to 4.490 km (2.790 mi) of road per 

square km in 1981, and in surface area 

of the map area from 0.131 percent (247 

ha; 610 ac) to 1.667 percent (3,132 ha; 

7,739 ac) (Allen 1989, pp. 236-240). 

Allen (1989, p. 240) reports that of 8,443 

km (5,246 mi) of roads in the Jemez 

Mountains in 1981, 74 percent was 

mapped on USFS lands (3,607 km; 

2,241 mi) and private lands (2,649 km; 

1,646 mi). These roads generally 

indicate past logging activity (Allen 

1989 p. 236). Ongoing effects of roads 

and their construction on the VCNP may 

exceed the effects of the timber harvests 

for which the roads were constructed 

(Balmat and Kupfer 2004, p. 46). The 

majority of roads within the range of the 

salamander are unpaved, and the 

compacted soil typically has very low 

infiltration rates that generate large 

amounts of surface runoff (Robichaud et 

al. 2010, p. 80). Increasing runoff and 

decreasing infiltration has led to the 

drying of adjacent areas of salamander 

habitat. 

The construction of roads and trails 

degrades habitat by compacting soil and 

eliminating interstitial spaces on the 

surface and sub-surface. Furthermore, 

roads and trails reduce or eliminate 

important habitat features (e.g., lowering 

canopy cover or drying of soil) and 

prevent gene flow (Saunders et al. 1991, 

p. 25; Burkey 1995, pp. 527, 528; 

Frankham et al. 2002, p. 310; Noss et al. 

2006, p. 219). Vehicular and offhighway vehicle (OHV) use of roads and 

trails can kill or injure salamanders. 

Roads are known to fragment terrestrial 

salamander habitat and act as partial 

barriers to movement (deMaynadier and 

Hunter 2000, p. 56; Marsh et al. 2005, 

p. 2004). We find that the establishment 

of roads and trails will likely continue 

to impact the salamander and its 

habitat, increasing the risk of extirpation 

of some localities. 

Road clearing and maintenance 

activities can also cause localized 

adverse impacts to the salamander from 

scraping and widening roads and 

shoulders or maintaining drainage 

ditches or replacing culverts. These 

activities may kill or injure individuals 

through crushing by heavy equipment. 

Existing and newly constructed roads or 

trails fragment habitat, accelerating 

extirpation of localities, especially when 

movement between suitable habitat is 

not possible (Burkey 1995, p. 540; 

Frankham et al. 2002, p. 314). Isolated 

populations or patches are vulnerable to 

random events, which could easily 

destroy part of or an entire salamander 

locality, or decrease a locality to such a 

low number of individuals that the risk 

of extirpation from human disturbance, 

natural catastrophic events, or genetic 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

54832 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

and demographic problems (e.g., loss of 

genetic diversity, uneven male to female 

ratios) would increase greatly (Shaffer 

1987, p. 71; Burkey 1995, pp. 527, 528; 

Frankham et al. 2002, pp. 310-324). 

Terrestrial salamanders are impacted 

by edge effects, typically adjacent to 

roads and areas of timber harvest, 

because microclimate conditions within 

forest edges often exhibit higher air and 

soil temperatures, lower soil moisture, 

and lower humidity, compared to 

interior forested areas (Moseley et al. 

2009, p. 426). Moreover, by creating 

edge effects, roads can reduce the 

quality of adjacent habitat by increasing 

light and wind penetration, exposure to 

pollutants, and the spread of invasive 

species (Marsh et al. 2005, pp. 2004- 

2005). Due to the physiological nature of 

terrestrial salamanders, they are 

sensitive to these types of microclimate 

alterations, particularly to changes to 

temperature and moisture (Moseley et 

al. 2009, p. 426). Generally, more 

salamanders are observed with 

increasing distance from some edge 

types, which is attributed to reduced 

moisture and microhabitat quality 

(Moseley et al. 2009, p. 426). 

Road construction on New Mexico 

State Highway 126 around the town of 

Seven Springs in 2007-2008 occurred in 

occupied salamander habitat in Unit 1. 

Measures were implemented by the 

USFS reduce the impact of these road 

construction activities on salamanders 

including limiting construction to times 

when salamanders would not be active 

on the surface and felling of 

approximately 300 trees in the project 

area to replace large woody debris used 

as salamander habitat. However, at least 

24 ac (9.7 ha) of salamander habitat 

were directly impacted by this project 

(USFS 2009c, p. 2), which resulted in 

the destruction and fragmentation of 

occupied salamander habitat. Continued 

maintenance of State Highway 126 in 

the future will likely involve the use of 

salts for road de-icing, and increase the 

exposure of adjacent areas to chemicals 

and pollution from vehicular traffic. 

Fragmentation of parts of Unit 1 and 

subsequent edge effects have reduced 

the quality and quantity of salamander 

habitat. 

In 2007, the NMEST concluded that 

impacts from OHVs and motorcycles 

were variable depending on their 

location relative to salamander habitat. 

Since the width of a trail is generally 

smaller than a road, canopy cover 

typically remains over trails. In some 

cases (e.g., flat areas without deeply cut 

erosion), the trails do not likely impede 

salamander movement. Alternatively, 

severe erosion caused by heavy trail use 

in some places formed trenches 

approximately 2 ft wide by 2 to 3 ft deep 

(0.6 m wide by 0.6 to 0.9 m deep), 

which would likely prevent salamander 

movement, fragment local populations, 

and trap salamanders that fall into the 

trenches. Often, the most severely 

impacted areas from OHVs had been the 

best salamander habitat prior to OHV 

use, because they were located on steep, 

north-facing slopes, with loose rocky 

soils that are easily eroded. 

In November 2005, the USFS issued 

the Travel Management Rule that 

requires designation of a system of 

roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle 

use by vehicle class and, if appropriate, 

by time of year (70 FR 68264; November 

9, 2005). As part of this effort, the USFS 

inventoried and mapped roads and 

motorized trails, and is currently 

completing a Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement to change the usage of 

some of the current system within the 

range of the salamander. The Santa Fe 

National Forest is attempting to 

minimize the amount of authorized 

roads or trails in known occupied 

salamander habitat and will likely 

prohibit the majority of motorized crosscountry travel within the range of the 

species (USFS 2009c, p. 2). 

Nevertheless, by closing some areas to 

OHV use, the magnitude of impacts in 

areas open to OHV use in salamander 

habitat will be greater (NMEST 2008, p. 

2). We acknowledge that some 

individual salamanders may be killed or 

injured by vehicles and OHVs and that 

OHV use impacts salamander habitat. 

However, we believe the Santa Fe 

National Forest is attempting to 

minimize impacts to the salamander 

and its habitat. Furthermore, we believe 

that the revised travel management 

regulations will reduce the impact of 

motorized vehicles on the salamander 

and its habitat by providing a consistent 

policy that can be applied to all classes 

of motor vehicles, including OHVs. We 

conclude that OHV and motorcycle use 

threatens the salamander if left 

unmanaged, but with the 

implementation of the forthcoming 

management of motorized trails on the 

Santa Fe National Forest, the threat will 

be greatly reduced. 

In summary, the extensive roads that 

currently exist in the Jemez Mountains 

have significantly impacted the 

salamander and its habitat due to death 

and injury of salamanders; 

fragmentation and population isolation; 

habitat loss; habitat modification from 

edges; and in some cases, increased 

exposure to chemicals, salts, and 

pollution. Roads associated with private 

development are most likely to be 

constructed in the future in portions of 

Units 3 and 4, which has the most 

private land. However, new roads may 

also be constructed through Federal 

lands within the salamander’s range. 

Roads and trails have significantly 

fragmented habitat and likely reduced 

persistence of existing salamander 

localities. Therefore, we conclude that 

roads, trails, and the resulting habitat 

fragmentation currently present a threat 

to the salamander, and this threat will 

continue in the future. 

Recreation 

Recreational activities threaten the 

salamander now and in the foreseeable 

future. The Jemez Mountains are heavily 

used for dispersed recreational activities 

that have the potential to impact the 

species, including camping, hiking, 

mountain biking, hunting, and skiing; 

OHV use is addressed above. There is 

overlap of the Jemez National 

Recreation Area, a 57,650 ac (23,330 ha) 

area of the southwestern Jemez 

Mountains, and salamander Units 1 and 

4. It is estimated that nearly 1.6 million 

people visit the Jemez National 

Recreation Area for recreational 

opportunities each year (Jemez National 

Recreation Area 2002, p. 2). Despite an 

existing average road density of 

approximately 2.5 mi (4.0 km) of road 

per square mile (2.6 square km) on the 

Jemez National Recreation Area, off road 

use continues to occur resulting in new 

roads being created or decommissioned 

roads being reopened (Jemez National 

Recreation Area 2002, pp. 10, 11). Using 

current population and travel trends, 

the potential visitation demand on the 

VCNP is between 250,000 and 400,000 

visits per year (Entrix 2009, p. 93). Of 

this projection, the VCNP is expected to 

realize 120,000 visitors per year by the 

year 2020 (Entrix 2009, p. 94). To put 

this in context, from 2002 to 2007 the 

VCNP averaged about 7,600 visitors per 

year (Entrix 2009, p. 13). Bandelier 

National Monument, which has a 

smaller proportion of salamander 

habitat, overlaps with the southern 

portion of Unit 3, and attracts an 

average annual visitation of over 

250,000 people (Entrix 2009, p. 92). 

Fenton Lake State Park in Unit 1 also 

contains salamander habitat. The park 

received over 120,000 visitors on its 70 

ac (28 ha) containing hiking trails and 

a fishing lake (Entrix 2009, p. 92). 

Campgrounds and associated parking 

lots and structures have likely impacted 

the salamander through modification of 

small areas of habitat from soil 

compaction and vegetation removal. 

Similarly, compaction of soil from 

hiking or mountain biking trails has 

modified a relatively small amount of 

habitat. The majority of these trails 

likely do not act as barriers to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54833 

movement nor create edge effects 

similar to roads because they are narrow 

and do not reduce canopy cover. 

However, similar to OHV trails, deeply 

eroded mountain bike trails could act as 

barriers and entrap salamanders. 

The Pajarito Ski Area in Los Alamos 

County was established in 1957 and 

expanded through 1994. Ski runs were 

constructed within salamander habitat. 

A significant amount of high-quality 

habitat (north-facing mountain with 

mixed conifer forests and many 

salamander observations) was destroyed 

with construction of the ski areas and 

the runs and roads have fragmented and 

created a high proportion of edge areas. 

Nevertheless, surveys conducted in 

2001 in two small patches of forested 

areas between ski runs detected 

salamanders (Cummer et al. 2001, pp. 1, 

2). Most areas between runs remain 

unsurveyed. However, because of the 

large amount of habitat destroyed, the 

extremely small patch sizes that remain, 

and relatively high degree of edge 

effects, the salamander will likely not 

persist in these areas in the long term. 

Adjacent to the downhill ski runs are 

cross country ski trails. These trails are 

USFS lands, but maintained by a private 

group. In 2001, trail maintenance and 

construction with a bulldozer was 

conducted by the group in salamander 

habitat during salamander surface 

activity period (NMEST 2001, p. 1). 

Trail maintenance was reported as 

leveling all existing ski trails with a 

bulldozer, that involved substantial soil 

disturbance, cutting into slopes as much 

as 2 ft (0.6 m), filling other areas in 

excess of 2 ft (0.6 m), widening trails, 

and downing some large trees (greater 

than 10 in (25.4 cm) dbh), ultimately 

disturbing approximately 2 to 5 ac (1 to 

2 ha) of occupied salamander habitat 

(Sangre de Christo Audubon Society 

2001, pp. 2-3). This type of trail 

maintenance while salamanders are 

surface active could result in direct 

impacts to salamanders, and further 

fragment and dry habitat. We do not 

know if there are future plans to modify 

or expand the existing ski area. 

The Jemez Mountains are currently 

heavily used for recreational activities, 

and as human populations in New 

Mexico continue to expand, there will 

likely be an increased demand in the 

foreseeable future for recreational 

opportunities in the Jemez Mountains. 

Large-scale recreational projects in 

salamander habitat would threaten the 

salamander. Therefore, we conclude 

that recreational activities currently 

threaten the salamander, and will 

continue to be a threat in the future. 

Livestock Grazing 

Historical livestock grazing changed 

the Jemez Mountains ecosystem by 

removing understory grasses, 

contributing to altered fire regimes, 

altered vegetation composition and 

structure, and increased soil erosion. 

Livestock grazing generally does not 

occur within salamander habitat 

because cattle concentrate outside of 

forested areas where grass and water are 

more abundant. We have no information 

that indicates livestock grazing is 

directly or indirectly threatening the 

salamander or its habitat. However, 

small-scale habitat modification, such as 

livestock trail establishment or 

trampling, in occupied salamander 

habitat is possible. The USFS and VCNP 

manage livestock to maintain fine grassy 

fuels and should not limit low-intensity 

fires in the future. Indirect effects from 

livestock activities may include the risk 

of aquatic disease transmission from 

earthen stock ponds that create areas of 

standing surface water. Earthen stock 

tanks are often utilized by tiger 

salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum), 

which are known to be vectors for 

disease (i.e., they can carry and spread 

disease) (Davidson et al. 2003, pp. 601- 

607). Earthen stock tanks can also 

concentrate tiger salamanders, 

increasing chances of disease. Some 

tiger salamanders use adjacent upland 

areas and may transmit disease to the 

Jemez Mountains salamander in areas 

where they co-occur. However, we do 

not have enough information to draw 

conclusions on the extent or role tiger 

salamanders may play in disease 

transmission. Although some smallscale habitat modification is possible, 

livestock are managed to maintain a 

grassy forest understory, and the 

connection between earthen stock tanks 

for livestock and aquatic disease 

transmission is unclear. Therefore, we 

conclude that livestock grazing is not a 

current threat to the salamander, nor do 

we believe it will be in the future. 

Summary 

In summary, the salamander and its 

habitat are threatened by historical and 

current fire management practices; 

severe wildland fire; forest composition 

and structure conversions; post-fire 

rehabilitation; forest management 

(including silvicultural practices); 

private (residential) development; roads, 

trails, and habitat fragmentation; and 

recreation. Due to the limited extent of 

habitat occupied by the salamander, the 

severity and magnitude of the threat of 

severe wildland fire, and ongoing 

impacts from the existing extensive road 

network and previous logging practices, 

we have determined that the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat and range 

represents a current significant threat to 

the salamander, and will continue to be 

so in the future. 

Factor B. Overutilization For 

Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 

Educational Purposes 

Overutilization does not threaten the 

salamander now or in the foreseeable 

future, but has likely caused salamander 

extirpation at the most abundant 

location known historically. Between 

1960 and 1999, nearly 1,000 

salamanders were collected from the 

wild for scientific or educational 

purposes. The majority (738 

salamanders) were collected between 

1960 and 1979 (Painter 1999, p. 1). 

Since 1999, very few salamanders have 

been collected, and all were collected 

under a valid permit issued by either 

NMDGF or USFS. This species is 

difficult to maintain in captivity, and 

we know of no salamanders in the pet 

trade or in captivity for educational or 

scientific purposes. 

In 1967, salamanders were only 

known from seven localities (Reagan 

1967, p. 13). Only one of these localities 

(the ‘‘Type Locality’’) was considered to 

have an abundant salamander 

population (Reagan 1967, p. 8). The 

species was originally described using 

specimens collected from this type 

locality within Unit 4 (Stebbins and 

Reimer 1950, pp. 73-80). Reagan (1967, 

p. 11) collected 165 salamanders from 

this locality between 1965 and 1967, 

whereas Williams collected an 

additional 67 of 659 salamanders found 

at this locality in 1970 (1972, p. 11). 

Although surveys have been conducted 

at this locality since the 1990s, no 

salamanders have been found, 

suggesting that salamanders in the area 

have likely been extirpated from 

overcollection. We are not aware of any 

other localities where the species has 

been extirpated from overcollection. 

Nevertheless, it is apparent that 

repeated collections of individuals can 

lead to extirpation. Still, we believe this 

is no longer a threat because collections 

are stringently regulated through 

permits issues by NMDGF and the USFS 

(see Factor D below). Additionally, due 

to these measures, we do not believe 

that collection will be a threat in the 

future. 

Survey techniques can alter 

salamander habitat by disturbing and 

drying the areas underneath the objects 

that provide cover, and destroying 

decaying logs by searching inside them. 

Surveyors are now trained to replace 

cover objects as they were found and to 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

54834 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

leave part of every log intact; however, 

impacts still occur. When surveys are 

dispersed and there are multiple 

intervening years, impacts are likely 

lessened; however, when a location is 

repeatedly surveyed, habitat quality is 

diminished. We are aware of only a few 

locations that have received impacts 

from repeated surveys (e.g., Activity 

Plots). 

We do not have any recent evidence 

of risks to the salamander from 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes, and we have no reason to 

believe this factor will become a threat 

to the species in the future. Therefore, 

based on a review of the available 

information, we find that overutilization 

for commercial, recreational, scientific, 

or educational purposes is not a threat 

to the salamander now or in the 

foreseeable future. 

Factor C. Disease or Predation 

The petition did not present any 

information indicating that disease or 

predation threatens the salamander. 

Additionally, we have no information in 

our files that indicates that disease or 

predation are a threat to the salamander 

currently or likely to become a threat in 

the future. 

The amphibian pathogenic fungus 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) 

was found in a wild-caught salamander 

in 2003 (Cummer et al. 2005, p. 248). 

Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis causes 

the disease chytridiomycosis, whereby 

the Bd fungus attacks keratin in 

amphibians. In adult amphibians, 

keratin primarily occurs in the skin. The 

symptoms of chytridiomycosis can 

include sloughing of skin, lethargy, 

morbidity, and death. Chytridiomycosis 

has been linked with worldwide 

amphibian declines, die-offs, and 

extinctions, possibly in association with 

climate change (Pounds et al. 2006, p. 

161). In New Mexico, Bd has caused 

significant population declines and 

local extirpations in the federally 

threatened Chiricahua leopard frog 

(Lithobates [Rana] chiricahuensis) 

(USFWS 2007, p. 14). It is also 

implicated in the decline of other 

leopard frogs and the disappearance of 

the boreal toad (Bufo boreas) from the 

State (NMDGF 2006, p. 13). Prior to the 

detection of Bd in the salamander, Bd 

was considered an aquatic pathogen 

(Longcore et al. 1999, p. 221; Cummer 

et al. 2005, p. 248). The salamander 

does not have an aquatic life stage and 

is strictly terrestrial; thus the mode of 

transmission of Bd remains unknown. It 

is possible that the fungus was 

transported by other amphibian species 

that utilize the same terrestrial habitat. 

Both the tiger salamander and the boreal 

chorus frog (Pseudacris maculata) are 

amphibians that have aquatic life stages 

and share terrestrial habitat with the 

salamander. In California, Bd has been 

present in wild populations of another 

strictly terrestrial salamander since 

1973, without apparent population 

declines (Weinstein 2009, p. 653). 

Cummer (2006, p. 2) reported that 

noninvasive skin swabs on 66 Jemez 

Mountains salamanders, 14 boreal 

chorus frogs, and 24 tiger salamanders 

from the Jemez Mountains were all 

negative for Bd. The observation of Bd 

in the salamander indicates that the 

species may be susceptible. However, 

virulence relative to the salamander 

remains unknown. Although Bd can be 

highly infectious and lethal, we have no 

information to suggest that the disease 

threatens the salamander currently or in 

the future. We intend to monitor the 

prevalence of Bd in the salamander 

using noninvasive skin swabs. 

Therefore, we do not find that disease 

or predations is currently a threat to the 

salamander, nor do we find it likely 

they will be so in the future. 

Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

One of the primary threats to the 

salamander is the loss, degradation, and 

fragmentation of habitat. As described 

below, existing regulatory mechanisms 

are not sufficient to protect the 

salamander or its habitat. New Mexico 

State law provides limited protection to 

the salamander. The salamander was 

reclassified by the State of New Mexico 

from threatened to endangered in 2005 

(NMDGF 2005, p. 2). This designation 

provides protection under the New 

Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act of 

1974 (i.e., State Endangered Species 

Act) (19 NMAC 33.6.8), but only 

prohibits direct take of species, except 

under issuance of a scientific collecting 

permit. The New Mexico Wildlife 

Conservation Act defines ‘‘take’’ or 

‘‘taking’’ as harass, hunt, capture, or kill 

any wildlife or attempt to do so (17 

NMAC 17.2.38). In other words, New 

Mexico State status as an endangered 

species only conveys protection from 

collection or intentional harm to the 

animals themselves. New Mexico State 

statutes do not address habitat 

protection, indirect effects, or other 

threats to these species. There is no 

formal consultation process to address 

the habitat requirements of the species 

or how a proposed action may affect the 

needs of the species. Because most of 

the threats to the species are from effects 

to habitat, protecting individuals will 

not ensure their long-term conservation 

and survival. 

The New Mexico State statutes 

require the NMDGF to develop a 

recovery plan that will restore and 

maintain habitat for the species. 

Although the species does not have a 

finalized recovery plan, NMDGF has the 

authority to consider and recommend 

actions to mitigate potential adverse 

effects to the salamander during its 

review of development proposals. There 

is no requirement to follow the 

recommendations as seen during the 

construction and realignment of 

Highway 126, when NMDGF made 

recommendations, but none of the 

measures recommended were 

incorporated into the project design to 

limit impacts to the salamander or its 

habitat (New Mexico Game Commission 

2006, pp. 12–13) (see Factor A. Present 

or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of the 

Species’ Habitat or Range section, 

above). 

The NMEST Cooperative Management 

Plan and Conservation Agreement were 

completed in 2000 (see Previous Federal 

Actions section above). The goal of these 

non-regulatory documents was to 

‘‘...provide guidance for the conservation 

and management of sufficient habitat to 

maintain viable populations of the 

species’’ (NMEST 2000, p. i.). However, 

they have been ineffective in preventing 

the ongoing loss of salamander habitat, 

and they are not expected to prevent 

further declines of the species. As 

discussed elsewhere, the intent of the 

agreement was to protect the 

salamander and its habitat on lands 

administered by the USFS; however, 

there have been projects that have 

negatively affected the species (e.g., 

State Highway 126 project) (WildEarth 

Guardians 2008, pp. 28–54). The 

Cooperative Management Plan and 

Conservation Agreement have been 

unable to prevent ongoing loss of 

habitat, and they are not expected to 

prevent further declines of the species. 

They do not provide adequate 

protection for the salamander or its 

habitat. 

Under the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 

1701 et seq.) and the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 

1600 et seq.), the USFS is directed to 

prepare programmatic-level 

management plans to guide long-term 

resource management decisions. Under 

this direction, the salamander has been 

on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive 

Species List since 1990 (USFS 1990). 

The Regional Forester’s Sensitive 

Species List policy is applied to projects 

implemented under the 1982 National 

Forest Management Act Planning Rule 

(49 FR 43026, September 30, 1982). All 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54835 

existing Plans continue to operate under 

the 1982 Planning Rule and all of its 

associated implementing regulations 

and policies. 

The intent of the Regional Forester’s 

sensitive species designation is to 

provide a proactive approach to 

conserving species, to prevent a trend 

toward listing under the Act, and to 

ensure the continued existence of 

viable, well-distributed populations. 

The USFS policy (FSM 2670.3) states 

that Biological Evaluations must be 

completed for sensitive species and 

signed by a journey-level biologist or 

botanist. The Santa Fe National Forest 

will continue developing biological 

evaluation reports and conducting 

analyses under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.) for each project that will 

affect the salamander or its habitat. The 

Santa Fe National Forest is also 

preparing the Southwest Jemez 

Mountains Landscape Assessment that, 

if funded, may reduce the threat of 

severe wildland fire in Units 1 and 4 of 

the salamander’s range over the next 10 

years (USFS 2009c, p. 2). At this time, 

funding of this project is not certain, nor 

is it likely to address short-term risk of 

severe wildland fire. While the Regional 

Forester’s sensitive species designation 

provides for consideration of the 

salamander during planning of 

activities, it does not preclude activities 

that may harm salamanders or their 

habitats on the Santa Fe National Forest. 

Finally, populations of salamanders 

have been observed on Tribal lands, Los 

Alamos National Laboratory lands, the 

VCNP, and private lands. Los Alamos 

National Laboratory has committed to, 

whenever possible, retaining trees in 

order to maintain greater than 80 

percent canopy cover, and avoiding 

activities that either compact soils or 

dry habitat (Los Alamos National 

Laboratory 2010, p. 7). 

In summary, the salamander currently 

does not receive adequate regulatory 

protection through the USFS sensitive 

species designation, State regulations, or 

the guidelines provided in the 

Cooperative Management Plan and 

Conservation Agreement. Outside of the 

limited protection from collection and 

intentional harm through the New 

Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act, there 

are no State or Federal regulations 

providing specific protections for the 

salamander or its habitat on these areas. 

The existing regulatory mechanisms 

are inadequate to ensure the species’ 

long-term conservation and survival 

because they do not specifically prevent 

threats to its habitat. We believe this 

lack of effective regulatory protection 

will affect the overall ability of the 

species to persist into the future. In light 

of this information, we conclude that 

the existing regulatory mechanisms 

have been ineffective and inadequate at 

preventing actions that threaten the 

salamander and its habitat, and this is 

expected to continue into the 

foreseeable future. 

Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade 

Factors Affecting the Species’ Continued 

Existence 

Under Factor E, we considered 

whether the Jemez Mountains 

salamander is threatened by chemical 

use and climate conditions. 

Chemical Use 

There is a potential for the 

salamander to be impacted by chemical 

use. Chemicals are used to suppress 

wildfire and for noxious weed control. 

Because the salamander has permeable 

skin, and breathes and carries out 

physiological functions with its skin, it 

may be susceptible if it comes in contact 

with fire retardants or herbicides. Many 

of these chemicals have not been 

assessed for effects to amphibians, and 

none have been assessed for effects to 

terrestrial amphibians. Therefore, we do 

not have enough information to 

determine whether chemical use 

threatens the salamander. 

Prior to 2006 (71 FR 42797; July 28, 

2006), fire retardant used by the USFS 

contained sodium ferrocyanide, which 

is highly toxic to fish and amphibians 

(Pilliod et al. 2003, p. 175). Fire 

retardant was used in salamander 

habitat for the Cerro Grande Fire (Unit 

3), but we do not know the quantity or 

location of this effort (USFS 2001, p. 1). 

While sodium ferrocyanide is no longer 

used by USFS to suppress wildfire, 

similar retardants and foams may still 

contain ingredients that are toxic to the 

salamander. Beginning in 2010, the 

USFS will begin phasing out the use of 

ammonium sulfate because of its 

toxicity to fish and replacing it with 

ammonium phosphate (USFS 2009e, p. 

1), which still may have adverse effects 

to the salamander. One of the 

ingredients of ammonium phosphate (a 

type of salt) appeared to have the 

greatest likelihood of adverse effects to 

terrestrial species assessed (birds and 

mammals) through ingestion (USFS/ 

LABAT Environmental 2007, pp. 24-27), 

and in amphibians, salts can disrupt 

osmoregulation (regulation of proper 

water balance and osmotic or fluid 

pressure within tissues and cells). 

Currently, we do not have enough 

information to determine whether the 

chemicals within fire retardants or 

foams threaten the salamander. 

However, we will continue to evaluate 

whether these chemicals may be a threat 

to this species. 

The USFS is in the process of 

completing an Environmental Impact 

Statement regarding the use of 

herbicides to manage noxious or 

invasive plants (Orr 2010, p. 2). 

Chemicals that could be used include 

2,4,D; Clopyralid; Chorsulfuron; 

Dicamba; Glyphosate; Hexazinone; 

Imazapic; Imazapyr; Metasulfuron 

Methyl; Sulfometuron Methyl; Picloram; 

and Triclopyr (Orr 2010, p. 2). We 

reviewed the ecological risk assessments 

for these chemicals at http:// 

www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/ 

risk.shtml, but found few studies and 

data relative to amphibians. We found a 

single study for Sulfometuron Methyl 

conducted on the African clawed frog 

(Xenopus laevis) (an aquatic frog not 

native to the United States). This study 

resulted in alterations in limb and organ 

development and metamorphosis 

(Klotzbach and Durkin 2004, pp. 4-6, 4- 

7). The use of chemicals listed above by 

hand-held spot treatments or road-side 

spraying (Orr 2010, p. 2) in occupied 

salamander habitat could result in 

impacts to the salamander. Because of 

the lack of toxicological studies of these 

chemicals, we do not know if there is a 

threat to the salamander. However, we 

will continue to evaluate whether these 

chemicals are a threat to the 

salamander. 

Climate Conditions 

Climate conditions have contributed 

to the status of the salamander now and 

will continue to in the foreseeable 

future. Habitat drying affects 

salamander physiology, behavior, and 

persistence; will affect the occurrence of 

natural events such as fire, drought, and 

forest die-off; and will increase the risk 

of disease and infection. Trends in 

climate change and drought conditions 

have contributed to temperature 

increases in the Jemez Mountains, with 

a corresponding decrease in 

precipitation. Because the salamander is 

terrestrial, constrained in range, and 

isolated to the higher elevations of the 

Jemez Mountains, continued 

temperature increases and precipitation 

decreases could threaten the viability of 

the species over its entire range. 

Climate simulations of Palmer 

Drought Severity Index (PSDI) (a 

calculation of the cumulative effects of 

precipitation and temperature on 

surface moisture balance) for the 

Southwest for the periods of 2006–2030 

and 2035–2060 show an increase in 

drought severity with surface warming. 

Additionally, drought still increases 

during wetter simulations because of the 

effect of heat-related moisture loss 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

54836 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(Hoerling and Eicheid 2007, p. 19). 

Annual mean precipitation is likely to 

decrease in the Southwest as well as the 

length of snow season and snow depth 

(International Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) 2007b, p. 887). Most models 

project a widespread decrease in snow 

depth in the Rocky Mountains and 

earlier snowmelt (IPCC 2007b, p. 891). 

Exactly how climate change will affect 

precipitation is less certain, because 

precipitation predictions are based on 

continental-scale general circulation 

models that do not yet account for land 

use and land cover change effects on 

climate or regional phenomena. 

Consistent with recent observations in 

climate changes, the outlook presented 

for the Southwest and New Mexico 

predict warmer, drier, drought-like 

conditions (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181; 

Hoerling and Eischeid 2007, p. 19). 

McKenzie et al. (2004, p. 893) suggest, 

based on models, that the length of the 

fire season will likely increase further 

and that fires in the western United 

States will be more frequent and more 

severe. In particular, they found that fire 

in New Mexico appears to be acutely 

sensitive to summer climate and 

temperature changes and may respond 

dramatically to climate warming. 

Plethodontid salamanders have a low 

metabolic rate and relatively large 

energy stores (in tails) that provide the 

potential to survive long periods 

between unpredictable bouts of feeding 

(Feder 1983, p. 291). Despite these 

specializations, terrestrial salamanders 

must have sufficient opportunities to 

forage and build energy reserves for use 

during periods of inactivity. As 

salamander habitat warms and dries, the 

quality and quantity of habitat decreases 

along with the amount of time that 

salamanders could be surface active. 

Wiltenmuth (1997, pp. ii-122) 

concluded that the Jemez Mountains 

salamanders likely persist by utilizing 

moist microhabitats and they may be 

near their physiological limits relative 

to water balance and moist skin. During 

field evaluations, the species appeared 

to be in a dehydrated state. If the species 

has difficulty maintaining adequate skin 

moisture (e.g., see Wiltenmuth 1997, pp. 

ii-122), it will likely spend less time 

being active. As a result, energy storage, 

reproduction, and long-term persistence 

would be reduced. 

Wiltenmuth (1997, p. 77) reported 

rates of dehydration and rehydration 

were greatest for the Jemez Mountains 

salamander compared to the other 

salamanders, and suggested greater skin 

permeability. While the adaptation to 

relatively quickly rehydrate and 

dehydrate may allow the salamander to 

more quickly rehydrate when moisture 

becomes available, it may also make it 

more susceptible and less resistant to 

longer dry times because it also quickly 

dehydrates. Dehydration affects the 

salamander by increasing heart rate, 

oxygen consumption, and metabolic rate 

(Whitford 1968, p. 249), thus increasing 

energy demand, limiting movements 

(Wiltenmuth 1997, p. 77), increasing 

concentration and storage of waste 

products (Duellman and Trueb 1986, p. 

207), decreasing burst locomotion 

(stride length, stride frequency, and 

speed) (Wiltenmuth 1997, p.45), and 

sometimes causing death. Moisturestressed salamanders prioritize 

hydration over all else, thereby reducing 

salamander survival and persistence. 

Additional impacts from dehydration 

could include increased predation 

because burst locomotion is impaired 

(which reduces ability to escape) and 

increased susceptibility to pathogens 

resulting from depressed immunity from 

physiological stress of dehydration. Any 

of these factors, alone or in 

combination, could lead either to the 

reduction or extirpation of salamander 

localities, especially in combination 

with the threats of habitat-altering 

activities, as discussed under Factor A. 

The IPCC (2007, pp. 12, 13) predicts that 

changes in the global climate system 

during the 21st century will very likely 

be larger than those observed during the 

20th century. For the next 2 decades, a 

warming of about 0.2 °C (0.4 °F) per 

decade is projected (IPCC 2007, p. 12). 

The Nature Conservancy of New Mexico 

analyzed recent changes in New 

Mexico’s climate. Parts I and II of a 

three-part series have been completed. 

In Part I, the time period 1961–1990 was 

used as the reference condition for 

analysis of recent departures (1991– 

2005; 2000–2005). This time period is 

consistent with the baseline used by 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration and the IPCC for 

presenting 20th-century climate 

anomalies and generating future 

projections (Enquist and Gori 2008, p. 

9). In Part II, trends in climate water 

deficit (an indicator of biological 

moisture stress, or drying), snowpack, 

and timing of peak stream flows were 

assessed for the period of 1970–2006 

(Enquist et al. 2008, p. iv). The Nature 

Conservancy of New Mexico concludes 

the following regarding climate 

conditions in New Mexico and the 

Jemez Mountains: 

(1) Over 95 percent of New Mexico 

has experienced mean temperature 

increases; warming has been greatest in 

the Jemez Mountains (Enquist and Gori 

2008, p. 16); 

(2) 93 percent of New Mexico’s 

watersheds have experienced increasing 

annual trends in moisture stress during 

1970–2006, that is, they have become 

relatively drier (Enquist et al. 2008, p. 

iv); 

(3) Snowpack has declined in 98 

percent of sites analyzed in New 

Mexico; the Jemez Mountains has 

experienced significant declines in 

snowpack (Enquist et al. 2008, p. iv); 

(4) Between 1980–2006, the timing of 

peak run-off from snowmelt occurred 2 

days earlier than in the 1951–1980 

period (Enquist et al. 2008, pp. 9, 25); 

(5) The Jemez Mountains have 

experienced warmer and drier 

conditions during the 1991–2005 time 

period (Enquist and Gori 2008, pp. 16, 

17, 23); and 

(6) The Jemez Mountains ranked 

highest of 248 sites analyzed in New 

Mexico in climate exposure—a measure 

of mean temperature and mean 

precipitation departures (Enquist and 

Gori 2008, pp. 10, 22, 51-58). 

Although the extent of warming likely 

to occur is not known with certainty at 

this time, the IPCC (2007a, p. 5) has 

concluded that the summer season will 

experience the greatest increase in 

warming in the Southwest (IPCC 2007b, 

p. 887). Temperature has strong effects 

on amphibian immune systems and may 

be an important factor influencing 

susceptibility of amphibians to 

pathogens (e.g., see Raffel et al. 2006, p. 

819); thus increases in temperature in 

the Jemez Mountains have the potential 

to increase the salamander’s 

susceptibility to disease and pathogens. 

As noted, we have no information that 

indicates disease threatens the 

salamander currently or in the future, 

but we intend to evaluate this further. 

Climate Conditions Summary 

In summary, we find that current and 

future effects from warmer climate 

conditions in the Jemez Mountains 

could reduce the amount of suitable 

salamander habitat, reduce the time 

period when the species can be surface 

active, and increase the moisture 

demands and subsequent physiological 

stress on salamanders. Warming and 

drying trends in the Jemez Mountains 

currently threaten the species, and these 

threats are projected to continue into the 

foreseeable future. 

Finding 

As required by the Act, we conducted 

a review of the status of the species and 

considered the five factors in assessing 

whether the salamander is endangered 

or threatened throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. We 

examined the best scientific and 

commercial information available 

regarding the past, present, and future 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54837 

threats faced by the salamander. We 

reviewed the petition, information 

available in our files, and other 

available published and unpublished 

information, and we consulted with 

salamander experts and other Federal, 

State, and tribal agencies. 

On the basis of the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

find that the petitioned action to list the 

Jemez Mountains is warranted, due to a 

combination of risk of historical and 

current fire management practices, 

severe wildland fire, forest composition 

and structure conversions, post-fire 

rehabilitation treatments, forest 

management (including silvicultural 

practices), private residential 

development, roads, trails, habitat 

fragmentation, and recreation. The 

salamander may also be threatened by 

disease and chemical use. Some of these 

threats may be exacerbated by the 

current and projected effects of climate 

change, and we have determined that 

the current and projected effects from 

climate change directly threaten the 

salamander. The loss of one of the 

largest known populations, the 

documented modification of the habitat 

from fire exclusion, and severe wildland 

fire places this species at great risk. 

Cumulative threats to the salamander 

are not being adequately addressed 

through existing regulatory 

mechanisms. Because of the limited 

distribution of this endemic species and 

its lack of mobility, threats are likely to 

render the species at risk of extinction 

in the foreseeable future. We will make 

a determination on the status of the 

species as endangered or threatened 

when we prepare a proposed listing 

determination. However, as explained 

in more detail below, an immediate 

proposal of a regulation implementing 

this action is precluded by higher 

priority listing actions, and progress is 

being made to add or remove qualified 

species to or from the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. 

We reviewed the available 

information to determine if the existing 

and foreseeable threats render the 

species at risk of extinction now such 

that issuing an emergency regulation 

temporarily listing the species under 

section 4(b)(7) of the Act is warranted. 

We determined that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the species is not warranted for 

this species at this time because, within 

the current distribution of the species 

throughout its range, there are at least 

some populations of the salamander that 

exist in relatively natural conditions 

that are unlikely to change in the short 

term. However, if at any time we 

determine that emergency listing of the 

salamander is warranted, we will 

initiate an emergency listing. 

The Service adopted guidelines on 

September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098), to 

establish a rational system for allocating 

available appropriations to the highest 

priority species when adding species to 

the Lists of Endangered or Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying 

threatened species to endangered status. 

The system places greatest importance 

on the immediacy and magnitude of 

threats, but also factors in the level of 

taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning 

priority in descending order to 

monotypic genera, full species, and 

subspecies (or equivalently, distinct 

population segments of vertebrates). As 

a result of our analysis of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we assigned the Jemez 

Mountains salamander a listing priority 

number (LPN) of 2, based on our finding 

that the species faces imminent and 

high-magnitude threats from the present 

or threatened destruction, modification, 

or curtailment of its habitat and the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms. The salamander and its 

habitat are threatened by historical and 

current fire management practices; 

severe wildland fire; forest composition 

and structure conversions; post-fire 

rehabilitation; forest management 

(including silvicultural practices); 

private (residential) development; roads, 

trails, and habitat fragmentation; and 

recreation. Due to the limited extent of 

habitat occupied by the salamander, the 

severity and magnitude of the threat of 

severe wildland fire, and ongoing 

impacts from the existing extensive road 

network and previous logging practices, 

we have determined that the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat and range 

represents a current significant threat to 

the salamander. Existing regulatory 

mechanisms are inadequate to ensure 

the species’ long-term conservation and 

survival because they do not specifically 

prevent threats to its habitat. One or 

more of the threats discussed above is 

occurring or is expected to occur 

throughout the entire range of this 

species. These threats are ongoing and, 

in some cases (e.g., loss of habitat 

through forest management), considered 

irreversible. While we conclude that 

listing the Jemez Mountains salamander 

is warranted, an immediate proposal to 

list this species is precluded by other 

higher priority listings, which we 

address below. 

Significant Portion of the Range 

The Act defines an endangered 

species as one ‘‘in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range,’’ and a threatened species as 

one ‘‘likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ The term ‘‘significant portion 

of its range’’ is not defined by the 

statute. For the purposes of this finding, 

a significant portion of a species’ range 

is an area that is important to the 

conservation of the species because it 

contributes meaningfully to the 

representation, resiliency, or 

redundancy of the species. The 

contribution must be at a level such that 

its loss would result in a decrease in the 

ability to conserve the species. 

If an analysis of whether a species is 

endangered or threatened in a 

significant portion of its range is 

appropriate, we engage in a systematic 

process that begins with identifying any 

portions of the range of the species that 

warrant further consideration. The range 

of a species can theoretically be divided 

into portions in an infinite number of 

ways. However, there is no purpose in 

analyzing portions of the range that are 

not reasonably likely to be significant 

and endangered or threatened. To 

identify only those portions that warrant 

further consideration, we determine 

whether there is substantial information 

indicating that (i) the portions may be 

significant and (ii) the species may be in 

danger of extinction there or likely to 

become so within the foreseeable future. 

In practice, a key part of this analysis is 

whether the threats are geographically 

concentrated in some way. If the threats 

to the species are essentially uniform 

throughout its range, no portion is likely 

to warrant further consideration. 

Moreover, if any concentration of 

threats applies only to portions of the 

range that are unimportant to the 

conservation of the species, such 

portions will not warrant further 

consideration. 

On the basis of an analysis of factors 

that may threaten the Jemez Mountains 

salamander, we have determined that 

listing is warranted throughout its 

range. Therefore, it is not necessary to 

conduct further analysis with respect to 

the significance of any portion of its 

range at this time. We will further 

analyze whether threats may be 

disproportionate and warrant further 

consideration as a significant portion of 

the species’ range when we develop a 

proposed listing determination. 

Preclusion and Expeditious Progress 

Preclusion is a function of the listing 

priority of a species in relation to the 

resources that are available and 

competing demands for those resources. 

Thus, in any given fiscal year (FY), 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

54838 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

multiple factors dictate whether it will 

be possible to undertake work on a 

proposed listing regulation or whether 

promulgation of such a proposal is 

warranted but precluded by higher 

priority listing actions. 

The resources available for listing 

actions are determined through the 

annual Congressional appropriations 

process. The appropriation for the 

Listing Program is available to support 

work involving the following listing 

actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 

90–day and 12–month findings on 

petitions to add species to the Lists of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants (Lists) or to change the status 

of a species from threatened to 

endangered; annual determinations on 

prior ‘‘warranted but precluded’’ petition 

findings as required under section 

4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat 

petition findings; proposed and final 

rules designating critical habitat; and 

litigation-related, administrative, and 

program-management functions 

(including preparing and allocating 

budgets, responding to Congressional 

and public inquiries, and conducting 

public outreach regarding listing and 

critical habitat). The work involved in 

preparing various listing documents can 

be extensive and may include, but is not 

limited to: Gathering and assessing the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available and conducting analyses used 

as the basis for our decisions; writing 

and publishing documents; and 

obtaining, reviewing, and evaluating 

public comments and peer review 

comments on proposed rules and 

incorporating relevant information into 

final rules. The number of listing 

actions that we can undertake in a given 

year also is influenced by the 

complexity of those listing actions; that 

is, more complex actions generally are 

more costly. For example, during the 

past several years, the cost (excluding 

publication costs) for preparing a 12– 

month finding, without a proposed rule, 

has ranged from approximately $11,000 

for one species with a restricted range 

and involving a relatively 

uncomplicated analysis to $305,000 for 

another species that is wide-ranging and 

involving a complex analysis. 

We cannot spend more than is 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

without violating the Anti-Deficiency 

Act (see 31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)). In 

addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal 

year since then, Congress has placed a 

statutory cap on funds which may be 

expended for the Listing Program, equal 

to the amount expressly appropriated 

for that purpose in that fiscal year. This 

cap was designed to prevent funds 

appropriated for other functions under 

the Act (for example, recovery funds for 

removing species from the Lists), or for 

other Service programs, from being used 

for Listing Program actions (see House 

Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st 

Session, July 1, 1997). 

Recognizing that designation of 

critical habitat for species already listed 

would consume most of the overall 

Listing Program appropriation, Congress 

also put a critical habitat subcap in 

place in FY 2002 and has retained it 

each subsequent year to ensure that 

some funds are available for other work 

in the Listing Program: ‘‘The critical 

habitat designation subcap will ensure 

that some funding is available to 

address other listing activities’’ (House 

Report No. 107 - 103, 107th Congress, 1st 

Session, June 19, 2001). In FY 2002 and 

each year until FY 2006, the Service has 

had to use virtually the entire critical 

habitat subcap to address courtmandated designations of critical 

habitat, and consequently none of the 

critical habitat subcap funds have been 

available for other listing activities. In 

FY 2007, we were able to use some of 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

proposed listing determinations for 

high-priority candidate species. In FY 

2009, while we were unable to use any 

of the critical habitat subcap funds to 

fund proposed listing determinations, 

we did use some of this money to fund 

the critical habitat portion of some 

proposed listing determinations so that 

the proposed listing determination and 

proposed critical habitat designation 

could be combined into one rule, 

thereby being more efficient in our 

work. In FY 2010, we are using some of 

the critical habitat subcap funds to fund 

actions with statutory deadlines. 

Thus, through the listing cap, the 

critical habitat subcap, and the amount 

of funds needed to address courtmandated critical habitat designations, 

Congress and the courts have in effect 

determined the amount of money 

available for other listing activities. 

Therefore, the funds in the listing cap, 

other than those needed to address 

court-mandated critical habitat for 

already listed species, set the limits on 

our determinations of preclusion and 

expeditious progress. 

Congress also recognized that the 

availability of resources was the key 

element in deciding, when making a 12– 

month petition finding, whether we 

would prepare and issue a listing 

proposal or instead make a ‘‘warranted 

but precluded’’ finding for a given 

species. The Conference Report 

accompanying Public Law 97-304, 

which established the current statutory 

deadlines and the warranted-butprecluded finding, states (in a 

discussion on 90–day petition findings 

that by its own terms also covers 12– 

month findings) that the deadlines were 

‘‘not intended to allow the Secretary to 

delay commencing the rulemaking 

process for any reason other than that 

the existence of pending or imminent 

proposals to list species subject to a 

greater degree of threat would make 

allocation of resources to such a petition 

[that is, for a lower-ranking species] 

unwise.’’ 

In FY 2010, expeditious progress is 

that amount of work that can be 

achieved with $10,471,000, which is the 

amount of money that Congress 

appropriated for the Listing Program 

(that is, the portion of the Listing 

Program funding not related to critical 

habitat designations for species that are 

already listed). However these funds are 

not enough to fully fund all our courtordered and statutory listing actions in 

FY 2010, so we are using $1,114,417 of 

our critical habitat subcap funds in 

order to work on all of our required 

petition findings and listing 

determinations. This brings the total 

amount of funds we have for listing 

actions in FY 2010 to $11,585,417. Our 

process is to make our determinations of 

preclusion on a nationwide basis to 

ensure that the species most in need of 

listing will be addressed first and also 

because we allocate our listing budget 

on a nationwide basis. The $11,585,417 

is being used to fund work in the 

following categories: compliance with 

court orders and court-approved 

settlement agreements requiring that 

petition findings or listing 

determinations be completed by a 

specific date; section 4 (of the Act) 

listing actions with absolute statutory 

deadlines; essential litigation-related, 

administrative, and listing programmanagement functions; and highpriority listing actions for some of our 

candidate species. In 2009, the 

responsibility for listing foreign species 

under the Act was transferred from the 

Division of Scientific Authority, 

International Affairs Program, to the 

Endangered Species Program. Starting 

in FY 2010, a portion of our funding is 

being used to work on the actions 

described above as they apply to listing 

actions for foreign species. This has the 

potential to further reduce funding 

available for domestic listing actions, 

although there are currently no foreign 

species issues included in our highpriority listing actions at this time. The 

allocations for each specific listing 

action are identified in the Service’s FY 

2010 Allocation Table (part of our 

administrative record). 

In FY 2007, we had more than 120 

species with an LPN of 2, based on our 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54839 

September 21, 1983, guidance for 

assigning an LPN for each candidate 

species (48 FR 43098). Using this 

guidance, we assign each candidate an 

LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the 

magnitude of threats (high vs. moderate 

to low), immediacy of threats (imminent 

or nonimminent), and taxonomic status 

of the species (in order of priority: 

monotypic genus (a species that is the 

sole member of a genus); species; or part 

of a species (subspecies, distinct 

population segment, or significant 

portion of the range)). The lower the 

listing priority number, the higher the 

listing priority (that is, a species with an 

LPN of 1 would have the highest listing 

priority). Because of the large number of 

high-priority species, we further ranked 

the candidate species with an LPN of 2 

by using the following extinction-risk 

type criteria: International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural 

Resources (IUCN) Red list status/rank, 

Heritage rank (provided by 

NatureServe), Heritage threat rank 

(provided by NatureServe), and species 

currently with fewer than 50 

individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. 

Those species with the highest IUCN 

rank (critically endangered), the highest 

Heritage rank (G1), the highest Heritage 

threat rank (substantial, imminent 

threats), and currently with fewer than 

50 individuals, or fewer than 4 

populations, comprised a group of 

approximately 40 candidate species 

(‘‘Top 40’’). These 40 candidate species 

have had the highest priority to receive 

funding to work on a proposed listing 

determination. As we work on proposed 

and final listing rules for these 40 

candidates, we are applying the ranking 

criteria to the next group of candidates 

with an LPN of 2 and 3 to determine the 

next set of highest priority candidate 

species. 

To be more efficient in our listing 

process, as we work on proposed rules 

for these species in the next several 

years, we are preparing multi-species 

proposals when appropriate, and these 

may include species with lower priority 

if they overlap geographically or have 

the same threats as a species with an 

LPN of 2. In addition, available staff 

resources are also a factor in 

determining high-priority species 

provided with funding. Finally, 

proposed rules for reclassification of 

threatened species to endangered are 

lower priority, since as listed species, 

they are already afforded the protection 

of the Act and implementing 

regulations. 

We assigned the Jemez Mountains 

salamander an LPN of 2, based on our 

finding that the species faces immediate 

and high magnitude threats from the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of its 

habitat; predation; and the inadequacy 

of existing regulatory mechanisms. One 

or more of the threats discussed above 

are occurring in each known population 

in the United States. These threats are 

ongoing and, in some cases (e.g., 

nonnative species), considered 

irreversible. Under our 1983 Guidelines, 

a ‘‘species’’ facing imminent highmagnitude threats is assigned an LPN of 

1, 2, or 3 depending on its taxonomic 

status. Because the Jemez Mountains 

salamander is a species, we assigned it 

an LPN of 2 (the highest category 

available for a species). Therefore, work 

on a proposed listing determination for 

the Jemez Mountains salamander is 

precluded by work on higher priority 

candidate species; listing actions with 

absolute statutory, court ordered, or 

court-approved deadlines; and final 

listing determinations for those species 

that were proposed for listing with 

funds from previous fiscal years. This 

work includes all the actions listed in 

the tables below under expeditious 

progress. 

As explained above, a determination 

that listing is warranted but precluded 

must also demonstrate that expeditious 

progress is being made to add or remove 

qualified species to and from the Lists 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants. (Although we do not discuss 

it in detail here, we are also making 

expeditious progress in removing 

species from the Lists under the 

Recovery program, which is funded by 

a separate line item in the budget of the 

Endangered Species Program. As 

explained above in our description of 

the statutory cap on Listing Program 

funds, the Recovery Program funds and 

actions supported by them cannot be 

considered in determining expeditious 

progress made in the Listing Program.) 

As with our ‘‘precluded’’ finding, 

expeditious progress in adding qualified 

species to the Lists is a function of the 

resources available and the competing 

demands for those funds. Given that 

limitation, we find that we are making 

progress in FY 2010 in the Listing 

Program. This progress included 

preparing and publishing the following 

determinations: 

TABLE 1: FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages 

10/08/2009 Listing Lepidium papilliferum (Slickspot 

Peppergrass) as a Threatened Species Throughout Its Range 

Final Listing Threatened 74 FR 52013-52064 

10/27/2009 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the American 

Dipper in the Black Hills of South Dakota as 

Threatened or 

Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Not substantial 

74 FR 55177-55180 

10/28/2009 Status Review of Arctic Grayling (Thymallus 

arcticus) in the Upper Missouri River System 

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review 74 FR 55524-55525 

11/03/2009 Listing the British Columbia Distinct Population 

Segment of the Queen Charlotte Goshawk Under 

the Endangered Species Act: Proposed rule. 

Proposed Listing Threatened 74 FR 56757-56770 

11/03/2009 Listing the Salmon-Crested Cockatoo as Threatened 

Throughout Its Range with Special Rule 

Proposed Listing Threatened 74 FR 56770-56791 

11/23/2009 Status Review of Gunnison sage-grouse 

(Centrocercus 

minimus) 

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review 74 FR 61100-61102 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

54840 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1: FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages 

12/03/2009 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Blacktailed Prairie Dog as Threatened or Endangered Notice of 12–month petition finding, Not warranted 74 FR 63343-63366 

12/03/2009 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Sprague’s Pipit 

as 

Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Substantial 

74 FR 63337-63343 

12/15/2009 90-Day Finding on Petitions To List Nine Species 

of Mussels From Texas as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Substantial 

74 FR 66260-66271 

12/16/2009 Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List 475 

Species in the Southwestern United States as 

Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Not substantial 

and Subtantial 

74 FR 66865-66905 

12/17/2009 12–month Finding on a Petition To Change the 

Final Listing of the Distinct Population Segment 

of the Canada Lynx To 

Include New Mexico 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, Warranted 

but 

precluded 

74 FR 66937-66950 

1/05/2010 Listing Foreign Bird Species in Peru and Bolivia as 

Endangered Throughout Their Range 

Proposed 

ListingEndangered 

75 FR 605-649 

1/05/2010 Listing Six Foreign Birds as Endangered Throughout Their Range Proposed 

ListingEndangered 

75 FR 286-310 

1/05/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Rule to List Cook’s Petrel Proposed rule, withdrawal 75 FR 310-316 

1/05/2010 Final Rule to List the Galapagos Petrel and 

Heinroth’s Shearwater as Threatened Throughout 

Their Ranges 

Final Listing Threatened 75 FR 235-250 

1/20/2010 Initiation of Status Review for Agave eggersiana 

and Solanum conocarpum 

Notice of Intent to Conduct Status Review 75 FR 3190-3191 

2/09/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition to List the American Pika as Threatened or Endangered Notice of 12–month petition finding, Not warranted 75 FR 6437-6471 

2/25/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Sonoran 

Desert Population of the Bald Eagle as a Threatened or 

Endangered Distinct Population Segment 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, Not warranted 75 FR 8601-8621 

2/25/2010 Withdrawal of Proposed Rule To List the Southwestern 

Washington/Columbia River Distinct Population 

Segment of Coastal Cutthroat Trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) as Threatened 

Withdrawal of Proposed 

Rule to List 

75 FR 8621-8644 

3/18/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Berry Cave 

salamander as Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Substantial 

75 FR 13068-13071 

3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Southern 

Hickorynut Mussel (Obovaria jacksoniana) as Endangered or 

Threatened 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Not substantial 

75 FR 13717-13720 

3/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Striped 

Newt as Threatened 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Substantial 

75 FR 13720-13726 

3/23/2010 12-Month Findings for Petitions to List the Greater 

Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)as 

Threatened or 

Endangered 

Notice of 12–month petition finding,Warranted 

but 

precluded 

75 FR 13910-14014 

3/31/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Tucson 

Shovel-Nosed Snake (Chionactis occipitalis 

klauberi) as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 12–month petition finding,Warranted 

but 

precluded 

75 FR 16050-16065 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54841 

TABLE 1: FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages 

4/5/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Thorne’s 

Hairstreak 

Butterfly as or Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Substantial 

75 FR 17062-17070 

4/6/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition To List the Mountain Whitefish in the Big Lost River, Idaho, as Endangered or Threatened Notice of 12–month petition finding, Not warranted 75 FR 17352-17363 

4/6/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Stonefly 

(Isoperla jewetti) and a Mayfly (Fallceon eatoni) 

as Threatened or 

Endangered with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Not substantial 

75 FR 17363-17367 

4/7/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to Reclassify the 

Delta Smelt From Threatened to Endangered 

Throughout Its Range 

Notice of 12–month petition finding,Warranted 

but precluded 

75 FR 17667-17680 

4/13/2010 Determination of Endangered Status for 48 Species 

on Kauai and Designation of Critical Habitat 

Final ListingEndangered 75 FR 18959-19165 

4/15/2010 Initiation of Status Review of the North American 

Wolverine in the Contiguous United States 

Notice of Initiation of Status Review 75 FR 19591-19592 

4/15/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Wyoming 

Pocket Gopher as Endangered or Threatened 

with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, Not warranted 75 FR 19592-19607 

4/16/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List a Distinct Population 

Segment of the Fisher in Its United States Northern 

Rocky Mountain Range as Endangered or 

Threatened with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Substantial 

75 FR 19925-19935 

4/20/2010 Initiation of Status Review for Sacramento splittail 

(Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) 

Notice of Initiation of Status Review 75 FR 20547-20548 

4/26/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Harlequin 

Butterfly as Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Substantial 

75 FR 21568-21571 

4/27/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List Susan’s 

Purse-making Caddisfly (Ochrotrichia susanae) 

as Threatened or 

Endangered 

Notice of 12–month petition finding, Not warranted 75 FR 22012-22025 

4/27/2010 90–day Finding on a Petition to List the Mohave 

Ground 

Squirrel as Endangered with Critical Habitat 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Substantial 

75 FR 22063-22070 

5/4/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List Hermes Copper Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Substantial 

75 FR 23654-23663 

6/1/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List Castanea 

pumila var. ozarkensis 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Substantial 

75 FR 30313-30318 

6/1/2010 12–month Finding on a Petition to List the Whitetailed Prairie Dog as Endangered or Threatened Notice of 12–month petition finding, Not warranted 75 FR 30338-30363 

6/9/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List van Rossem’s 

Gull-billed Tern as Endangered orThreatened. 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Substantial 

75 FR 32728-32734 

6/16/2010 90-Day Finding on Five Petitions to List Seven 

Species of 

Hawaiian Yellow-faced Bees as Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Substantial 

75 FR 34077-34088 

6/22/2010 12-Month Finding on a Petition to List the Least 

Chub as Threatened or Endangered 

Notice of 12–month petition finding,Warranted 

but 

precluded 

75 FR 35398-35424 

6/23/2010 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Honduran 

Emerald Hummingbird as Endangered 

Notice of 90–day Petition 

Finding, Substantial 

75 FR 35746-35751 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

54842 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1: FY 2010 COMPLETED LISTING ACTIONS—Continued 

Publication Date Title Actions FR Pages 

6/23/2010 Listing Ipomopsis polyantha (Pagosa Skyrocket) as 

Endangered Throughout Its Range, and Listing 

Penstemon debilis (Parachute Beardtongue) and 

Phacelia submutica (DeBeque Phacelia) as 

Threatened Throughout Their Range 

Proposed 

ListingEndangeredProposed Listing Threatened 

75 FR 35721-35746 

6/24/2010 Listing the Flying Earwig Hawaiian Damselfly and 

Pacific 

Hawaiian Damselfly As Endangered Throughout 

Their Ranges 

Final ListingEndangered 75 FR 35990-36012 

6/24/2010 Listing the Cumberland Darter, Rush Darter, 

Yellowcheek Darter, Chucky Madtom, and Laurel 

Dace as Endangered Throughout Their Ranges 

Proposed 

ListingEndangered 

75 FR 36035-36057 

6/29/2010 Listing the Mountain Plover as Threatened Reinstatement of Proposed 

ListingThreatened 

75 FR 37353-37358 

Our expeditious progress also 

includes work on listing actions that we 

funded in FY 2010 but have not yet 

been completed to date. These actions 

are listed below. Actions in the top 

section of the table are being conducted 

under a deadline set by a court. Actions 

in the middle section of the table are 

being conducted to meet statutory 

timelines, that is, timelines required 

under the Act. Actions in the bottom 

section of the table are high-priority 

listing actions. These actions include 

work primarily on species with an LPN 

of 2, and selection of these species is 

partially based on available staff 

resources, and when appropriate, 

include species with a lower priority if 

they overlap geographically or have the 

same threats as the species with the 

high priority. Including these species 

together in the same proposed rule 

results in considerable savings in time 

and funding, as compared to preparing 

separate proposed rules for each of them 

in the future. 

Actions funded in FY 2010 but not yet completed 

Species Action 

Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement 

6 Birds from Eurasia Final listing determination 

Flat-tailed horned lizard Final listing determination 

Mountain plover Final listing determination 

6 Birds from Peru Proposed listing determination 

Sacramento splittail Proposed listing determination 

Gunnison sage-grouse 12–month petition finding 

Wolverine 12–month petition finding 

Arctic grayling 12–month petition finding 

Agave eggergsiana 12–month petition finding 

Solanum conocarpum 12–month petition finding 

Mountain plover 12–month petition finding 

Thorne’s Hairstreak Butterfly 12–month petition finding 

Hermes copper butterfly 12–month petition finding 

Actions with Statutory Deadlines 

Casey’s june beetle Final listing determination 

Georgia pigtoe, interrupted rocksnail, and rough hornsnail Final listing determination 

African penguin Final listing determination 

3 Foreign bird species (Andean flamingo, Chilean woodstar, St. Lucia forest thrush) Final listing determination 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54843 

Actions funded in FY 2010 but not yet completed 

Species Action 

5 Penguin species Final listing determination 

Southern rockhopper penguin – Campbell Plateau population Final listing determination 

5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador Final listing determination 

7 Bird species from Brazil Final listing determination 

Queen Charlotte goshawk Final listing determination 

Salmon-crested cockatoo Proposed listing determination 

Black-footed albatross 12–month petition finding 

Mount Charleston blue butterfly 12–month petition finding 

Mojave fringe-toed lizard1 12–month petition finding 

Pygmy rabbit (rangewide)1 12–month petition finding 

Kokanee – Lake Sammamish population1 12–month petition finding 

Delta smelt (uplisting) 12–month petition finding 

Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl1 12–month petition finding 

Northern leopard frog 12–month petition finding 

Tehachapi slender salamander 12–month petition finding 

Coqui Llanero 12–month petition finding 

White-sided jackrabbit 12–month petition finding 

Dusky tree vole 12–month petition finding 

Eagle Lake trout1 12–month petition finding 

29 of 206 species 12–month petition finding 

Desert tortoise – Sonoran population 12–month petition finding 

Gopher tortoise – eastern population 12–month petition finding 

Amargosa toad 12–month petition finding 

Pacific walrus 12–month petition finding 

Wrights marsh thistle 12–month petition finding 

67 of 475 southwest species 12–month petition finding 

9 Southwest mussel species 12–month petition finding 

14 parrots (foreign species) 12–month petition finding 

Berry Cave salamander1 12–month petition finding 

Striped Newt1 12–month petition finding 

Fisher – Northern Rocky Mountain Range1 12–month petition finding 

Mohave Ground Squirrel1 12–month petition finding 

Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly 12–month petition finding 

Western gull-billed tern 12–month petition finding 

Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. ozarkensis) 12–month petition finding 

HI yellow-faced bees 12–month petition finding 

Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering pop. of piping plover1 90–day petition finding 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

54844 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Actions funded in FY 2010 but not yet completed 

Species Action 

Eagle Lake trout1 90–day petition finding 

Smooth-billed ani1 90–day petition finding 

Bay Springs salamander1 90–day petition finding 

32 species of snails and slugs1 90–day petition finding 

Calopogon oklahomensis1 90–day petition finding 

White-bark pine 90–day petition finding 

42 snail species (Nevada & Utah) 90–day petition finding 

Red knot roselaari subspecies 90–day petition finding 

Peary caribou 90–day petition finding 

Plain bison 90–day petition finding 

Giant Palouse earthworm 90–day petition finding 

Mexican gray wolf 90–day petition finding 

Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly 90–day petition finding 

Spring pygmy sunfish 90–day petition finding 

San Francisco manzanita 90–day petition finding 

Bay skipper 90–day petition finding 

Unsilvered fritillary 90–day petition finding 

Texas kangaroo rat 90–day petition finding 

Spot-tailed earless lizard 90–day petition finding 

Eastern small-footed bat 90–day petition finding 

Northern long-eared bat 90–day petition finding 

Prairie chub 90–day petition finding 

10 species of Great Basin butterfly 90–day petition finding 

6 sand dune (scarab) beetles 90–day petition finding 

Golden-winged warbler 90–day petition finding 

Sand-verbena moth 90–day petition finding 

Aztec (beautiful) gilia 90–day petition finding 

Arapahoe snowfly 90–day petition finding 

High Priority Listing Actions3

19 Oahu candidate species3 (16 plants, 3 damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =9) Proposed listing 

17 Maui-Nui candidate species3 (14 plants, 3 tree snails) (12 with LPN = 2, 2 with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 

8) 

Proposed listing 

Sand dune lizard3 (LPN = 2) Proposed listing 

2 Arizona springsnails3 (Pyrgulopsis bernadina (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis trivialis (LPN = 2)) Proposed listing 

2 New Mexico springsnails3 (Pyrgulopsis chupaderae (LPN = 2), Pyrgulopsis thermalis (LPN = 11)) Proposed listing 

2 mussels3 (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox No LPN) Proposed listing 

2 mussels3 (sheepnose (LPN = 2), spectaclecase (LPN = 4),) Proposed listing 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54845 

Actions funded in FY 2010 but not yet completed 

Species Action 

Ozark hellbender2 (LPN = 3) Proposed listing 

Altamaha spinymussel3 (LPN = 2) Proposed listing 

8 southeast mussels (southern kidneyshell (LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2), Alabama pearlshell 

(LPN = 2), southern sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN = 5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow 

pigtoe (LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11)) 

Proposed listing 

1 Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs. 2 We funded a proposed rule for this subspecies with an LPN of 3 ahead of other species with LPN of 2, because the threats to the species 

were so imminent and of a high magnitude that we considered emergency listing if we were unable to fund work on a proposed listing rule in FY 

2008. 3 Funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009. 

We have endeavored to make our 

listing actions as efficient and timely as 

possible, given the requirements of the 

relevant law and regulations, and 

constraints relating to workload and 

personnel. We are continually 

considering ways to streamline 

processes or achieve economies of scale, 

such as by batching related actions 

together. Given our limited budget for 

implementing section 4 of the Act, these 

actions described above collectively 

constitute expeditious progress. 

The Jemez Mountains salamander will 

be added to the list of candidate species 

upon publication of this 12–month 

finding. We will continue to monitor the 

status of this species as new information 

becomes available. This review will 

determine if a change in status is 

warranted, including the need to make 

prompt use of emergency listing 

procedures. 

We intend that any proposed listing 

action for the Jemez Mountains 

salamander will be as accurate as 

possible. Therefore, we will continue to 

accept additional information and 

comments from all concerned 

governmental agencies, the scientific 

community, industry, or any other 

interested party concerning this finding. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references is 

available on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or upon request 

from the Field Supervisor, New Mexico 

Ecological Services Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this rule are 

the staff members of the New Mexico 

Ecological Services Office. 

Authority 

The authority for this section is 

section 4 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: August 23, 2010. 

Wendi Weber, 

Acting Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22455 Filed 9–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS