fed register

8/13/2019 Fed Register

1/29

Vol. 78 Tuesday,

No. 175 September 10, 2013

Part III

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of

Endangered Species Status for Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodonneomexicanus) Throughout Its Range; Final Rule

VerDate Mar2010 17:29 Sep 09, 2013 Jkt 229001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\10SER3.SGM 10SER3


2/29

55600 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013/ Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWSR2ES20120063;4500030113]

RIN 1018AY24

Endangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants; Determination ofEndangered Species Status for JemezMountains Salamander (Plethodonneomexicanus) Throughout Its Range

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, determine endangeredspecies status under the EndangeredSpecies Act of 1973 (Act), as amended,for the Jemez Mountains salamander

(Plethodon neomexicanus). This finalrule implements the Federal protectionsprovided by the Act for this species. Wehave also determined that criticalhabitat for the Jemez Mountainssalamander is prudent and determinablein the proposed rule and will soonpublish in the Federal Register our finaldetermination designating criticalhabitat for the Jemez Mountainssalamander.

DATES: This rule becomes effectiveOctober 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is availableon the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfm,and the rule as well as comments andmaterials received are available athttp://www.regulations.govat DocketNo. FWSR2ES20120063. Commentsand materials received, as well assupporting documentation used in thepreparation of this rule, will also beavailable for public inspection, byappointment, during normal businesshours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,New Mexico Ecological Services FieldOffice, 2105 Osuna NE., Albuquerque,NM 87113; by telephone 5053462525;or by facsimile 5053462542.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Wally Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, New MexicoEcological Services Field Office (seeADDRESSES section). If you use atelecommunications device for the deaf(TDD), call the Federal InformationRelay Service (FIRS) at 8008778339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. Underthe Act, a species or subspecies may

warrant protection through listing if it isendangered or threatened throughout allor a significant portion of its range.Listing a species as an endangered orthreatened species can only becompleted by issuing a rule. OnSeptember 12, 2012 (77 FR 56482), weproposed to list the Jemez Mountainssalamander (Plethodon neomexicanus)

under the Act as an endangered speciesand proposed to designate criticalhabitat. In that document we explainedthat the species currently facesnumerous threats of high magnitude,and, therefore, qualifies for listing andrequested additional information andcomments on the proposed listing. Thisfinal rule considers all commentsreceived by peer reviewers, tribes, Stateagencies, Federal agencies, and thepublic regarding the proposed rule tolist the Jemez Mountains salamander.This is our final determination to listthe Jemez Mountains salamander as

endangered.The basis for our action. Under the

Act, a species may be determined to bean endangered or threatened species

based on any of five factors: (A) Thepresent or threatened destruction,modification, or curtailment of itshabitat or range; (B) overutilization forcommercial, recreational, scientific, oreducational purposes; (C) disease orpredation; (D) the inadequacy ofexisting regulatory mechanisms; and (E)other natural or manmade factorsaffecting its continued existence. Wehave determined that the Jemez

Mountains salamander meets thedefinition of an endangered species dueto three of these five factors.

Peer review and public comment. Wesought comments from independentspecialists to ensure that ourdesignation is based on scientificallysound data, assumptions, and analyses.We invited these peer reviewers tocomment on our listing proposal. Wealso considered all comments andinformation received during thecomment period.

Background

Previous Federal ActionsPlease refer to the proposed listing

rule for the Jemez Mountainssalamander (77 FR 56482; September12, 2012) for a detailed description ofprevious Federal actions concerning thisspecies.

We have also determined that criticalhabitat for the Jemez Mountainssalamander is prudent and determinablein the proposed rule and will soonpublish in the Federal Register our finaldetermination designating critical

habitat for the Jemez Mountainssalamander.

Species Information

The Jemez Mountains salamander isuniformly dark brown above, withoccasional fine gold to brassy coloringwith stippling dorsally (on the back andsides) and is sooty gray ventrally

(underside). The salamander is slenderand elongate, and it possesses footwebbing and a reduced fifth toe. Thissalamander is a member of the familyPlethodontidae, is strictly terrestrial,and does not use standing surface waterfor any life stage. Respiration (theexchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide)occurs through the skin, which requiresa moist microclimate for gas exchange.

Taxonomy and Species Description

The Jemez Mountains salamander wasoriginally reported as Spelerpesmultiplicatus (=Eurycea multiplicata) in1913 (Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 27);however, it was described andrecognized as a new and distinct species(Plethodon neomexicanus) in 1950(Stebbins and Riemer, pp. 7380). Nosubspecies of the Jemez Mountainssalamander are recognized.

The Jemez Mountains salamander isone of two species of plethodontidsalamanders endemic (native andrestricted to a particular region) to NewMexico: the Jemez Mountainssalamander and the SacramentoMountains salamander (Aneides hardii).Unlike most other North Americanplethodontid salamanders, these two

species are geographically isolated fromall other species of Plethodon andAneides.

Genetic studies on plethodontidsalamanders in North America suggestthat the Jemez Mountains salamander ismore closely related to westernPlethodon species than to easternPlethodon salamanders, and that theLarch Mountain salamander (P. larselli)found in Oregon and Washington is nolonger considered the most closelyrelated species to the Jemez Mountainssalamander (Mahoney 2001, p. 184). Inmany of the analyses presented byMahoney 2001 (entire), the JemezMountains salamander is basal to allother western Plethodon (that is, itmaintains the most derived characters,or, that other western Plethodon aremore closely related to each other thanany are to the Jemez Mountainssalamander), but still, the relationshipof the Jemez Mountains salamander toother western plethodontid salamandersremains partially unresolved.Nonetheless, it has been demonstratedthat the Jemez Mountains salamandersclosest relatives are western

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfmhttp://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfmhttp://www.regulations.gov/http://www.regulations.gov/http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfmhttp://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfm


3/29

55601Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 175 / Tuesday, September 10, 2013/ Rules and Regulations

salamanders of the Pacific Northwest ofthe United States and include VanDykes salamander (P. vandykei), LarchMountain salamander (P. larselli),Siskiyou Mountains salamander (P.stormi), Del Norte salamander (P.elongatus), western red-backedsalamander (P. vehiculum), Dunnssalamander (P. dunni), and the green

salamander (Aneides aeneus) (Mahoney2001, pp. 178183). These species,including the Jemez Mountainssalamander, are thought to be the resultof an old, rapid diversification(Mahoney 2001, p. 185).

Distribution

The distribution of plethodontidsalamanders in North America has beenhighly influenced by past changes inclimate and associated Pleistoceneglacial cycles. In the Jemez Mountains,the lack of glacial landforms indicatesthat alpine glaciers may not havedeveloped here, but evidence fromexposed rocky areas (felsenmeers) mayreflect near-glacial conditions duringthe Wisconsin Glacial Episode (Allen1989, p. 11). Conservatively, thesalamander has likely occupied the

Jemez Mountains for at least 10,000years, but this could be as long as 1.2million years, colonizing the areasubsequent to volcanic eruption.

The Jemez Mountains salamander isrestricted to the Jemez Mountains innorthern 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 ofthe caldera. The majority of salamanderhabitat is located on federally managedlands, including the U.S. Forest Service(USFS), the National Park Service(Bandelier National Monument), VallesCaldera National Preserve, and LosAlamos National Laboratory, with somehabitat located on tribal land andprivate lands (New Mexico EndemicSalamander Team 2000, p. 1). TheValles Caldera National Preserve islocated west of Los Alamos, NewMexico, and is part of the National

Forest System (owned by the U.S.Department of Agriculture), but run bya nine-member Board of Trustees: theSupervisor of Bandelier NationalMonument, the Supervisor of the SantaFe National Forest, and seven othermembers appointed by the President ofthe United States with distinct areas ofexperience or activity (Valles CalderaTrust 2005, pp. 111). Prior to Federalownership in 2000, the Valles CalderaNational Preserve was privately held.The species predominantly occurs at anelevation between 7,200 and 9,500 feet

(ft) (2,200 and 2,900 meters (m))(Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28), but has

been found as low as 6,998 ft (2,133 m)(Ramotnik 1988, p. 78) and as high as10,990 ft (3,350 m) (Ramotnik 1988, p.84).

Biology

The Jemez Mountains salamander is

strictly terrestrial, does not possesslungs, and does not use standing surfacewater for any life stage. Respiration (theexchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide)occurs through the skin, which requiresa moist microclimate for gas exchange.Substrate moisture through its effect onabsorption and loss of water is probablythe most important factor in the ecologyof this terrestrial salamander, as it is inother strictly terrestrial salamanderspecies (Heatwole and Lim 1961, p.818). The Jemez Mountains salamanderspends much of its life underground,

but can be found above ground whenrelative environmental conditions arewarm and wet, which is typically from

July through September; but occasionalsalamander observations have beenmade in May, June, and October.Relatively warm and wet environmentalconditions suitable for salamanderaboveground activity are likelyinfluenced by melting snow andsummer monsoon rains. When activeabove ground, the species is usuallyfound under decaying logs, rocks, bark,or moss mats or inside decaying logs orstumps.

Changes in pH (acidity or alkalinity)can affect plethodontid salamander

behavioral and physiological responses(Cummer and Painter 2007, p. 34). Inone study of the Jemez Mountainssalamander, soil pH was the single bestindicator of relative abundance ofsalamanders at a site (Ramotnik 1988,pp. 2425). Sites with salamanders hada soil pH of 6.6 ( 0.08) and siteswithout salamanders had a soil pH of6.2 ( 0.06). In another species of aterrestrial plethodontid salamander, thered-backed salamander (Plethodoncinereus), soil pH influences and limitsits distribution and occurrence as wellas its oxygen consumption rates and

growth rates (Wyman and Hawksley-Lescault 1987, p. 1823). Similarly,Frisbie and Wyman (1991, p. 1050)found the disruption of sodium balance

by acidic conditions in three species ofterrestrial salamanders. A low pHsubstrate can also reduce salamander

body sodium, body water levels, andbody mass (Frisbie and Wyman 1991, p.1050). Significant differences in habitatfeatures (soil pH, litter depth, and logsize) were reported between the loggedand unlogged sites (Ramotnik 1986, p.8). We do not know if salamanders

actually occupied the logged sites priorto logging, but significant differences inhabitat features (soil pH, litter depth,and log size) between the logged andunlogged sites were reported (Ramotnik1986, p. 8). The type and quantity ofvegetation affects soil pH (e.g. pineneedles are acidic, decomposed pineneedles can increase the soils acidity),

and thus could also affect thesalamander.

Salamander prey from abovegroundforaging is diverse in size and type, withants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae), mites(Acari), and beetles (Coleoptera) beingmost important (most numerous, mostvoluminous, and most frequent) in thesalamanders diet (Cummer 2005, p. 43).Cummer (2005, pp. 4550) found thatspecialization on invertebrate specieswas unlikely, but there was likely apreferential selection of prey categories(ants, mites, and beetles).

The aboveground microhabitat (underor inside cover objects) temperature forsome Jemez Mountains salamandersranged from 43 to 63 degrees Fahrenheit(F) (6.0 to 17.0 degrees Celsius (C)),with an average of 54.9 F (12.7 C)(Williams 1972, p. 18). Significantlymore salamanders were observed underlogs where temperatures were closest tothe average temperature (Williams 1972,p. 19).

Sexual maturity is attained at 3 to 4years in age for females and 3 years formales (Williams 1976, pp. 31, 35).Reproduction in the wild has not beenobserved; however, based on observedphysiological changes, mating is

believed to occur above ground betweenJuly and August during the rainy season(Williams 1976, pp. 3136). Based onexamination of 57 female salamandersin the wild and 1 clutch of eggs laid ina laboratory setting, Williams (1978, p.475) concluded that females likely lay 7or 8 eggs every 2 to 3 years. Eggs arethought to be laid underground in thespring, about 9 to 10 months aftermating occurs (Williams 1978, p. 475).Fully formed Jemez Mountainssalamanders hatch from the eggs.

The lifespan of the salamander in thewild is unknown. However, in 2013 amarked salamander was observed at aprevious study site where salamanderswere uniquely marked with fluorescentelastomer (a colored epoxy injectedunder the skin) from 1996 through 2000.Based on the colors used, thissalamander was likely marked in 1998or 1999. Juvenile salamanders receiveda different kind of marking, indicatingthat this wild salamander is minimally14 years old, but more likely 1517years old.



4/29


Movements, Home Range, and Dispersal

Ramotnik (1988, pp. 1112) usedimplanted radioactive wires inpolyethylene tubing to track nineindividual Jemez Mountain salamandersfor durations between 2 days and 6weeks, monitoring their movementsevery 1 to 3 days, and two salamanderswere tracked every 2 hours throughouta 12-hour period. Ramotnik (1988, p. 27)reported that individual distancessalamanders moved betweenconsecutive observations ranged from 0to 108 ft (0 to 33 m) and that 73 percentof recorded movements were less than3.3 ft (1 m). In 59 of 109 observations,salamanders did not move. When thezero-distance movements were excludedfrom analysis, the average distancesalamanders moved was 7.8 ft (2.4 m),and the greatest total recorded distanceof an individual was 144 ft (43.9 m) over22 days (Ramotnik 1988, p. 28).Ramotnik (1988, p. 32) also estimated

the home range of six salamanders withthese data and reports the average homerange was 86 square feet (ft2) (8.0 squaremeters (m2)); males had a larger homerange (137 ft2 (12.7 m2)) than females(78 ft2 (7.2 m2)). The individuals thathad larger home ranges (greater than 54ft2 (5.0 m2)) were often found returningto the same cover object; whereasindividuals with home ranges less than54 ft2 (5 m2) rarely returned to the samespot (Ramotnik 1988, p. 32). Thesmallest estimated home range was 10.7ft2 (1 m2) and the largest 220.7 ft2 (20.5m2) (Ramotnik 1988, p. 28).

In a markrecapture study conductedby the New Mexico Department of Gameand Fish (NMDGF), the average distanceof 32 movements measured viarecapture either in the same year orfrom year to year, measured over thecourse of approximately 10 years withina 164-ft-by-164-ft (50-m-by-50-m) plot,was 19.6 ft (5.98 m), with a maximumdistance moved from original capturesite of 60.7 ft (18.5 m) (NMDGF 2000,p. 15). In this same study, onesalamander was observed near the samelog nearly 5 years later (NMDGF 2000,p. 16). The data from this study suggest

that Jemez Mountains salamandersgenerally move very little (NMDGF2000, p. 16). While the data on JemezMountains salamander movements arelimited because of small sample size,they provide important information onthe relatively small movements made byindividuals and their relatively smallhome range, and show that,occasionally, individuals can makelarger movements.

For another well-studied terrestrialsalamander, the red-backed salamander(Plethodon cinereus), researchers have

conflicting evidence regarding dispersalabilities. Some information suggests thissalamander exhibits small movements,even across multiple years, consistingprimarily of small home ranges andwith little movement among coverobjects (53269 ft2, 525 m2)(Kleeberger and Werner 1982, p. 411).However, there is other evidence ofmoderate-distance homing ability (90 m,295 ft) (Kleeberger and Werner 1982, p.411). Cabe et al. 2007 (pp. 5360)measured gene flow of red-backedsalamanders across a continuousforested habitat as an indicator of thesalamanders dispersal. They suggestedthat gene flow and dispersal frequencywere normally low, indicating that red-

backed salamanders generally do notmove much, but under certaincircumstances, they might dispersefarther than normal. These uniqueconditions occur when the population

density of red-backed salamanders is sohigh in a given area that the habitat issaturated with them, resulting in areduction in breeding success, andother, less densely populated habitat isavailable (Cabe et al. 2007, p. 53). In amore closely related terrestrialsalamander, the Siskiyou Mountainssalamander, individuals are reported tomake daily to seasonal verticalmigrations in the ground surface asmicroclimate conditions change, but notextensive horizontal movements (Olsonet al. 2009, p. 3). Furthermore, geneticanalyses indicate limited gene flow in

the Siskiyou Mountains salamander andthat populations may have been onisolated evolutionary pathways for avery long time (Olson et al. 2009, p. 3).

Because the Jemez Mountainssalamander makes very small horizontalmovements and has limited potential forlong-distance horizontal movements,habitat connectivity limitations couldhave profound effects on populations.These effects could occur fromincreased vulnerability to genetic drift(the process where small populationsize causes chance alterations in thegenetic composition of a population by

natural selection) and inbreeding, fewersuccessful breeding opportunities, andincreased susceptibility to stochasticevents (occurring in a random pattern,such as floods, fires, and tornados).Gene flow and population structure hasnot been assessed in the JemezMountains salamander, but wouldprovide useful information forpopulation management andidentification of important areas toprotect in order to maintain habitatconnectivity.

Habitat

The strictly terrestrial JemezMountains salamander predominantlyinhabits mixed-conifer forest, consistingprimarily of Douglas fir (Pseudotsugamenziesii), 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 (Populustremuloides) (Reagan 1967, p. 17;Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28). Althoughpure stands of Ponderosa pine may not

be considered ideal habitat, the specieshas occasionally been found in thishabitat. The species has alsooccasionally been found in spruce-firand aspen stands, and high-elevationmeadows. However, these habitat typeshave not been adequately surveyed sothe extent to which salamanders usethese habitats is not fully known.Predominant understory trees include

Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum),New Mexico locust (Robinianeomexicana), oceanspray (Holodiscussp.), and various shrubby oaks (Quercusspp.) (Reagan 1967, p. 17; Degenhardt etal. 1996, p. 28).

Everett (2003, entire) reported habitatvariables for 23 sites where JemezMountains salamanders were found.Everett (2003) reported that thesalamander occurred on all slopeaspects (p. 21) (the average slope rangedfrom 4 to 40.5 degrees (p. 24)); werewithin 14.0 to 99.8 percent canopycover and averaged 58.2 to 94.3 percent

canopy cover (p. 24); and were foundunder logs (35 percent), rocks (34percent), bark (9 percent), and insidelogs (22 percent). Available coverobjects included rock (52 percent),coarse woody debris (7 percent), bark(11 percent), and cow pie (i.e., manure,less than 1 percent) (p. 24). There may

be high-elevation meadows locatedwithin the critical habitat units that areused by the Jemez Mountainssalamander. Currently, we do not fullyunderstand how salamanders utilizeareas like meadows, where the aboveground vegetation component differsfrom areas where salamanders are morecommonly encountered (e.g., forestedareas); however, salamanders have beenfound in high-elevation meadows.Salamanders are generally found inassociation with decaying coniferouslogs (which they use as cover anddaytime retreats), and in areas withabundant white fir, Ponderosa pine, andDouglas fir as the predominant treespecies (Reagan 1967, pp. 1617;Ramotnik 1988, p. 17). Salamanders usedecaying coniferous logs (particularlyDouglas fir logs) considerably more



5/29


often than deciduous logs, likely due tothe physical features (e.g., blocky pieceswith cracks and spaces) that form asconiferous logs decay (Ramotnik 1988,p. 53). Still, the species may be found

beneath some deciduous logs andexcessively decayed coniferous logs,

because these can provide abovegroundhabitat and cover (Ramotnik 1988, p.

53).Subsurface geology and loose rocky

soil structure may be an importantattribute of underground salamanderhabitat (Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28).Geologic and moisture constraints likelylimit the distribution of the species. SoilpH (acidity or alkalinity) may limitdistribution as well. However, thecomposition of this subterranean habitathas not been fully investigated. Everett(2003) reported that the salamanderoccurred in areas where soil texture wascomposed of 56 percent sandy clayloam, 36 percent clay loam, 6 percent

sandy loam, and 2 percent silty clayloam (p. 28); the overall soil bulkdensity ranged from 0.2 to 0.98 ouncesper cubic inch (oz/in3) (0.3 to 1.7 gramsper cubic centimeter (g/cm3) (p. 28); andhad average soil moisture from 4.85 to59.7 percent (p. 28). The salamanderssubterranean habitat appears to be deep,fractured, subterranean, igneous rock inareas with high soil moisture (NewMexico Endemic Salamander Team2000, p. 2). Many terrestrialsalamanders deposit eggs in well hiddensites, such as underground cavities,decaying logs, and moist rock crevices(Pentranka 1998, p. 6). Because the

Jemez Mountain salamander spends themajority of its life below ground, eggsare probably laid and hatchunderground. Although no egg clutcheshave been discovered in the wild, it is

believed they are laid in the fracturedinterstices of subterranean,metamorphic rock.

Jemez Mountain salamanders lacklungs; instead, they are cutaneousrespirators (meaning they exchangegases, such as oxygen and carbondioxide, through their skin). To supportcutaneous respiration its skin must bemoist and permeable. Jemez Mountain

salamanders must address hydrationneeds above all other life-history needs.The salamander must obtain its waterfrom its habitat. In addition, it has nophysiological mechanism to stopdehydration or water loss to theenvironment. Based on this information,it is likely that substrate moisturethrough its effect on absorption and lossof water is the most important factor inthe ecology of this species (Heatwoleand Lim 1961, p. 818). We suspect thatthese components may be a main driver

behind salamander occurrences and

distribution. We are aware of twomodeling efforts that have been initiatedon the relationship of subsurface rockand soil components of salamanderhabitat that we anticipate will helpinform our understanding of thedistribution of the salamander, but theseare not yet completed. In addition,

because microclimates where conditions

are moist and cool are important to thespecies, we also suspect that variablesthat contribute to or work in concertwith one another to provide moist coolmicroclimates are important to thespecies. For example, shading on hillsprovided by topography and mosaicpatterns in canopy closure provideshading and allow precipitation to reachthe soil.

Status of the Species

A complete overview of the availablesurvey data and protocols for the JemezMountains salamander is reported in the12-month finding for the salamander (75FR 54822; September 9, 2010).Standardized survey protocols have

been used for the salamander since 1987(NMDGF 2000, p. 2), but the numberand location of surveys have beenvariable and opportunistic. Surveymethods involve searching underpotential cover objects (e.g., logs, rocks,

bark, moss mats) and insidedecomposing coniferous logs whenenvironmental conditions are likely bestfor detecting surface-active salamanders,generally May through September, whensummer monsoon rains occur.Unfortunately, methods for determining

locations to survey salamanders over thepast 20 years have not been systematic,and though we have conducted acomprehensive review, the data havenot been consistently available to allowcomparison of the status of thesalamander over its entire range.

Three survey protocols have been inuse since 1987 (NMEST 2000b, pp. 2729). Protocol A (presence or absence)has been used when attempting todetermine whether an area is occupied(NMEST 2000b, p. 27). Following thisprotocol, surveys cease after 2 person-hours of effort (e.g., one person

searching for 2 hours or two peoplesearching for 1 hour) or when the firstsalamander is observed, whichevercomes first. Because the salamanderutilizes underground habitat and anunknown number of individuals may beactive at the surface, repeated surveysmay be necessary to determineoccupancy of a locality (NMEST 2000b,p. 27).

Protocol B (population levels andtrends) has been used for comparingplots, monitoring trends through time,or evaluating how salamander localities

fluctuate in response to environmentalvariables (NMEST 2000b, p. 28). For thisprotocol, a survey is conducted for 2person-hours, with all salamanderstallied.

Protocol C (detailed environmentaldata) collects microhabitat data tocharacterize potential salamanderhabitat (NMEST 2000b, p. 28). This

protocol involves collecting data onimportant habitat features within a 50 m(160 ft) by 2 m (6.6 ft) transect, inaddition to surveying for salamandersunder cover objects.

The rangewide population size of thesalamander is also unknown.Monitoring the absolute abundance ofplethodontid salamanders is inherentlydifficult because of the natural variationassociated with surface activity (Hydeand Simons 2001, p. 624), whichultimately affects the probability ofdetecting a salamander. The probabilityof detection varies over space and timeand is highly dependent upon theenvironmental and biologicalparameters that drive surface activity(Hyde and Simons 2001, p. 624). Giventhe known bias of detectionprobabilities and the inconsistentsurvey effort across years, populationsize estimates using existing data cannot

be made accurately.In summary, we have approximately

20 years of salamander survey data thatprovide detection information atspecific survey sites for given points intime. The overall rangewide populationsize of the Jemez Mountains salamanderis unknown because surveys tend to be

localized (approximately 256-ft-by-256-ft areas, 200-m-by-200-m). Additionally,like most plethodontid salamanders,monitoring population size or trends ofthe Jemez Mountains salamander isinherently difficult because of thenatural variation associated with thespecies behavior (Hyde and Simons2001, p. 624). For example, when thespecies is underground, they cannot bedetected (Hyde and Simons 2001, p.624). Therefore, the probability ofdetecting a salamander is highlyvariable and dependent upon theenvironmental and biological

parameters that drive aboveground andbelowground activities ((i.e., moisture,temperature) Hyde and Simons 2001, p.624). Everett (2003, p. 35) noted thatareas with high percentages of area ofhabitat covered by decaying logs, rocks,

bark, moss mats, and stumps aredifficult to survey and locatesalamanders when present, and may

bias the data toward lower percentagesof area covered by decaying logs, rocks,

bark, moss mats, and stumps. Given theknown bias of detection probabilities(i.e., the difficulty in detecting



6/29


salamanders when present due to beingunderground, secretive, and sparsenumbers) and the inconsistent surveyeffort across years, as a result ofdifferences in the number of days whensurveys occurred, differences inenvironmental conditions, and differentsurvey methods employed, populationtrends and population size estimates

using existing data cannot be madeaccurately.

Despite our inability to quantifypopulation size or trends for thesalamander, these qualitative data (datathat are observable, but not measurable)provide information for potentialinferences. Based on these inferences,the persistence of the salamander mayvary across the range of the species. Forexample, in some localities where thesalamander was once consideredabundant or common, the salamander isnow rarely detected or has not beenrecently detected at all (New Mexico

Heritage Program 2010a and b,spreadsheets). The number of areaswhere salamanders were once present,

but have not been observed during morerecent surveys, also appears to haveincreased (New Mexico HeritageProgram 2010a and b, spreadsheets).Alternatively, there are two localities onthe Valles Caldera National Preservewhere the salamander continues to berelatively abundant (Redondo Borderlocated in the central portion of theValles Caldera National Preserve, andon a slope in the northeast portion ofthe Valles Caldera National Preserve),compared to most other recent

detections at other sites. Still, thenumber of individuals found at the twoabove referenced localities in the ValleCaldera National Preserve is far lessthan historical reports from other areas.For example, 659 individualsalamanders were captured outside theValle Caldera National Preserve at onelocation in Sandoval County in a singleyear in 1970, and 394 of the 659 werecaptured in a single month (Williams1976, p. 26). The maximum number ofsalamanders captured rangewide is 68salamanders (observed in 2005). In otherwords, the number of salamanders

observed during recent surveys is farless than observed in historical surveys.Currently, there is no known locationwhere the number of salamandersobserved is similar to that observed in1970.

Overall, the numbers of salamandersfound at some of the localized surveyareas appear to be similar from surveyto survey and from year to year. Surveysare conducted during the period inwhich environmental conditions forsalamander aboveground activity iswarm and wet, which is typically from

July through September. However, inother areas when surveys are conductedduring optimal environmentalconditions, fewer or no salamanders arecaptured, particularly along the westernand southern sides of the range, (NewMexico Heritage Program 2010a and b,spreadsheets). An assessment ofpopulation trends using these data

would not be appropriate becauseestimates of detection probabilities werenot collected, and repeated surveyswithin the same year were not regularlyconducted. Without specificallyaccounting for detection probabilitiesusing repeated survey techniques, it isunknown whether a trend in populationis an actual trend or is due to a greateror lesser proportion of salamanderspresent being above ground or belowground, which is driven byenvironmental conditions such astemperature and moisture. For example,if one year a small proportion of a

population was above ground and in thenext year a large proportion of thepopulation was above ground, it could

be interpreted that the number ofindividuals increased at that site;however, actual numbers could have

been unchanged. We have not fullyexplored future studies that could makeuse of the existing data; however, weexpect that detecting overall trends will

be difficult for this species, given datalimitations, the cost of comprehensivesurveys and protocols to account fornatural, annual, and spatial variation,and the long timeframe needed to detecttrends.

In summary, the available data cannotbe used to estimate population size ortrends in the rangewide abundance ofthe salamander. Although we lackspecific long-term population and trendinformation, available data andqualitative observations of salamandersat surveyed sites during wetenvironmental conditions indicate thatsalamanders are now more difficult tofind during most surveys than they were20 years ago and earlier, and the numberof areas with surveys resulting in nosalamander detections is increasing. Onthis basis, which is the best available

scientific information, we conclude thatthe Jemez Mountains salamander is indanger of extinction throughout all of itsrange.

Summary of Comments andRecommendations

We requested written comments fromthe public on the proposed rule duringtwo comment periods. The firstcomment period associated with thepublication of the proposed rule openedon September 12, 2012 (77 FR 56482),and closed on November 13, 2012. We

also requested comments during aperiod that opened on February 12,2013 (78 FR 9876), and closed on March14, 2013. We also contacted appropriateFederal and State agencies, scientificexperts and organizations, and otherinterested parties and invited them tocomment on the proposal. A newspapernotice inviting general public commentwas published in the Los AlamosMonitor. We did not receive anyrequests for a public hearing.

During the first comment period, wereceived nine comment lettersaddressing the proposed listing of the

Jemez Mountains salamander withendangered status and the proposedcritical habitat designation. During thesecond comment period, we received 11comment letters addressing theproposed listing of the Jemez Mountainssalamander, the proposed criticalhabitat designation, the draft

environmental assessment or the drafteconomic analysis. All substantiveinformation provided during commentperiods has either been incorporateddirectly into this final determination oraddressed below.

Peer Review

In accordance with our peer reviewpolicy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR34270), we solicited expert opinionfrom seven knowledgeable individualswith scientific expertise that includedfamiliarity with the species, thegeographic region in which the species

occurs, and conservation biologyprinciples. We received responses fromthree of the seven peer reviewers.

We reviewed all comments receivedfrom the peer reviewers for substantiveissues and new information regardingthe listing of Jemez Mountainssalamander. All three peer reviewersagreed that the information presented inthe proposed rule to list the JemezMountains salamander as anendangered species is scientificallysound and well researched; that theassumptions, analyses, and conclusionsare well reasoned; and that the

information is well formulated and therisks or threats to the species are notundervalued. The peer reviewersprovided clarifications and suggestionsto improve the final rules to list the

Jemez Mountains salamander asendangered and to designate criticalhabitat. Peer reviewer commentsspecifically regarding the listing of the

Jemez Mountains salamander areaddressed in the following summaryand incorporated into the final rule asappropriate.



7/29


Biology and Background Section

(1) Comment: Two peer reviewers andsome commenters thought additionalinformation regarding ourunderstanding of the subsurface rockand soil components of salamanderhabitat should be included in thehabitat section. One commenter stated

that some factors, including soil pH andsoil bulk density, are ignored or tooreadily dismissed.

Our Response: Subsurface geologyand loose rocky soil structure may be animportant attribute of salamanderhabitat (Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28).However, the composition of this

belowground habitat has not been fullyinvestigated, although soils comprisedof pumice or tuft generally are notsuitable. The salamanders belowgroundhabitat appears to be deep, fractured,subterranean, igneous rock in areas withhigh soil moisture (New MexicoEndemic Salamander Team 2000, p. 2).

Everett (2003) reported that thesalamander occurred in areas where soiltexture was composed of 56 percentsandy clay loam, 36 percent clay loam,6 percent sandy loam, and 2 percentsilty clay loam (p. 28); the overall soil

bulk density ranged from 0.2 to 0.98ounces per cubic inch (oz/in3) (0.3 to1.7 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3)(p. 28); and had average soil moisturefrom 4.85 to 59.7 percent (p. 28). Siteswith salamanders had a soil pH of 6.6( 0.08) and sites without salamandershad a soil pH of 6.2 ( 0.06) (Ramotnik1988, pp. 2425). We have updated the

relevant sections to better describe ourcurrent understanding of JemezMountains salamander subsurface rockand soil components. We have clarifiedthe language in section Biology above,and the Fire Exclusion, Suppression,and Severe Wildland Fires section

below. We are not aware of any reliableinformation that is currently available tous on these topics that was notconsidered in this determinationprocess.

Threats

(2) Comment: One peer reviewer did

not agree with the conclusion that firesuppression actions, which include theuse of fire retardants, water dropping,

backfiring, and fire line construction,are not a threat to the salamander.

Our Response: The best commercialand scientific information available atthis time, including the Fire RetardantBiological Assessment submitted by theUSFS (2011, entire), does not evaluateimpacts to salamanders or their habitatfrom fire suppression actions. Firesuppression actions, including fireretardants, water dropping, backfiring,

and fire line construction, may bothprotect and negatively impactsalamanders and their habitat. Theeffects from fire suppression on the

Jemez Mountains salamander or itshabitat are unknown. Fire retardantsmay affect individual salamanders andtheir habitat, but based the bestavailable scientific and commercial data

does not indicate that it is a threat to thespecies as a whole.

(3) Comment: Two peer reviewerscommented on chemical use insalamander habitat. One stated thatchemical use may constitute asignificant threat to the salamander,implied that the lack of informationdoes not mean that the threat does notaffect salamanders, and suggested thateffects that some chemicals used mayhave on the salamander or its habitatshould be immediately studied. Theother peer reviewer thought insecticidesused to control western spruce

budworm (Choristoneura occidentalis)and bark beetles (Dendroctonus spp., Ipsspp.) should be considered in moredetail.

Our Response: We agree with thereviewers that lack of information aboutimpacts to the species does not meanthere are no impacts. However, the bestavailable scientific and commercial datadoes not support the claim thatchemical use (including fire retardantchemical) is currently a threat to thespecies. Currently, we have noinformation on the effects of chemicalimpacts on salamanders. We are notaware of any broad-scale use of

insecticides in salamander habitat in thepast, which allow us to consider inmore detail. Further, we are not awareof any broad-scale use of insecticides insalamander habitat or proposed for thefuture, and have no reason to believethat this could be a threat in theforeseeable future. The best availablescientific data does not indicate thatchemical use is a threat to thesalamander.

(4) Comment: The data do not seemstrong enough to conclude that changesin vegetative components aloneconstitute a threat.

Our Response: We consider existingand ongoing changes in vegetationcomposition and structure to be a threatto the salamander because it isinterrelated to changes in fire regimes.In order to reduce the risk of large-scalestand-replacing wildfire, managementactions to change the current forestconditions are needed.

(5) Comment: One peer reviewerstated that unregulated collection of the

Jemez Mountains salamander may bemore significant than credited, whileanother stated that the current absence

of salamanders at the type locality isdisturbing, yet does not prove thatovercollecting is the cause of the declineor disappearance of salamanders inspecific areas. A commenter stated thatpast collection was dismissed tooreadily. The USFS commented that itwas not clear if collections were fromthe same sites that are used as reference

sites for salamander populations, butthat historical collections could still beinfluencing salamander populations

because of relatively low fecundity.Our Response: We believe that the

majority of collections were made at andaround the general area located on thesouthwest portion of the range of thesalamander, south of New MexicoHighway 4. Based on the number ofspecimens collected from this area, we

believe that the impact from collectionshere was significant and was no doubta contributing factor in the lack ofpersistence of the salamander there. We

have reviewed the Overutilization forCommercial, Recreational, Scientific, orEducational Purposes in this final rule,

below, and made clarifications based onthe information available; in some cases,the source material was not clear. Asexplained in the Overutilization forCommercial, Recreational, Scientific, orEducational Purposes, collection of thespecies is regulated by several State andFederal regulations, and illegalcollection is not known or thought to behigh. Therefore, the best availablescientific and commercial data does notindicate that collection is presently anongoing or future threat.

(6) Comment: One peer reviewerstated that increased coordinationefforts on the timing and placement ofsalvage logging operations couldmitigate the threats posed by salvagelogging. Santa Clara Pueblo stated thatsalvage logging after wildfire can helpalleviate the hydrophobicity (repellingthe absorption of water) of soils throughdisturbance of the soils in pulling thesalvage logs to a landing area, and theService should be careful not to maketoo sweeping a statement about thethreats posed by salvage logging.Guidelines could be developed for

managing salvage logging that wouldalso benefit the salamander. The USFScommented that there are manyvariables to consider regarding salvagelogging, and some measures could betaken that include salvage logging inorder to reduce the risk of re-burning inareas that have been burned withwildfire.

Our Response: We agree that someimpacts resulting from salvage loggingin salamander habitat could be abatedthrough best management practices, andthere may be certain management



8/29


actions regarding some salvage loggingthat could be of potential benefit to the

Jemez Mountains salamander. We canprovide technical assistance to develop

best management practices with thoseengaged in salvage logging or timberharvesting in areas that may affect thesalamander or its habitat. Furthermore,

best management practices for

minimizing or eliminating adverseeffects to the salamander or its habitatresulting from actions such as salvagelogging or timber harvesting that arefunded, authorized, or carried out byFederal agencies can be developedthrough section 7 consultation with theService.

(7) Comment: One peer reviewerstated the assumption that an increasein the number of small-diameter treeswould result in increased water demandrequired for evapotranspiration should

be supported with a citation, or if thesituation is more complex, further

explanation of the complexities anduncertainties should be made.

Our Response: We clarified timberharvest actions and included additionalinformation regarding some timberharvest actions and soil water (moisture)in this final rule under the ForestSilvicultural Practices section underFactor A. The Present or ThreatenedDestruction, Modification, orCurtailment of Its Habitat or Range,

below. The dynamic between treedensity, thinning, and soil water is a keyecological process, which is relevant notonly to restoration efforts, but also to

salamander physiology. We stronglysupport research in this area in theJemez Mountains. We also agree thatsome impacts resulting from timberharvest and thinning in salamanderhabitat could be abated through bestmanagement practices and could also

benefit the salamander. We look forwardto developing best managementpractices with those potentially engagedin timber harvesting in areas that mayaffect the salamander or its habitat.Furthermore, best management practicesfor minimizing or eliminating adverseeffects to the salamander or its habitat

resulting from actions such as timberharvesting that are funded, authorized,or carried out by Federal agencies can

be developed through section 7consultation with the Service.

Comments from the U.S. Forest Service

(8) Comment: The USFS commentedthat there are many variables to considerregarding salvage logging, and somemeasures could be taken that includesalvage logging that reduces the risk ofre-burning in areas that have been

burned with wildfire.

Our Response: See our response toComment 6, above.

(9) Comment: The USFS commentedthat there are still many unknowns,which lead to numerous assumptionsmade throughout the document andprovide a clear indication that sufficientdata does not exist to understand thisspecies status and needs. A public

commenter stated the scientific recordaccumulated to date is not sufficientlyrobust to warrant further regulatoryaction. Additional data should becollected before listing the species asendangered. The Service shouldwithdraw the proposal to list the JemezMountains salamander as endangered

because of lack of sound scientificevidence. The proposed rule is flawed

because it relies too much onspeculation and assumption rather thanthe best scientific information availableas required.

Our Response: As required by the Act,we based our proposal and this finalrule on the best available scientific andcommercial data. We requested reviewfrom seven scientific experts of ourtechnical assumptions, analysis,adherence to regulations, and whetheror not we had used the best availableinformation. We received reviews fromthree, all three peer reviewers confirmedthat the information contained withinthis rule is scientifically sound, basedon a combination of reasonable facts,assumptions, and conclusions, and thescience is well considered. Werequested new information during theopen public comment period and

reviewed information in our files andother available published andunpublished information, and weconsulted with recognized speciesexperts and other Federal, State, andtribal agencies. We must make thisdetermination on the basis of the bestscientific and commercial informationavailable at this time, and we may notdelay our decision until moreinformation about the species and itshabitat are available. Southwest Center

for Biological Diversity v. Babbitt, 215F.3d 58 (DC Cir. 2000).

(10) Comment: In light of the

unknowns, the number of assumptionsdescribed in the proposed rule, and thedifficulty in detecting the salamander, itdoes not appear that there is evidenceto support the conclusion that thisspecies is at risk of extinction (i.e.,endangered) or likely to becomeendangered throughout all or asignificant portion of its range withinthe foreseeable future (i.e., threatened).

Our Response: Please see OurResponse to Comment 9 above. We havefound that the Jemez Mountainssalamander is presently in danger of

extinction throughout all of its rangebased on the severity of threatscurrently affecting the salamander. Thethreats are both current and expected tocontinue in the future, and aresignificant in that they limit all

behavioral and physiological functions,including breathing, feeding, andreproduction and reproductive success,

and extend across the entire range of thespecies (For full discussion, seeSummary of Factors Affecting theSpecies and Determination sections,

below).(11) Comment: The proposed rule

vastly increases the area of potentialsalamander habitat through loosedescription of the habitat and biology.As written, the proposed rule wouldsuggest any mixed conifer, Ponderosapine, spruce, and aspen, essentially allforested lands and meadows between7,200 and 9,500 ft (2,194 to 2,895 m)elevation in the Jemez Mountains, to be

salamander habitat. Clearly, that is notthe case and has not been the view ofthe New Mexico Endemic SalamanderTeam Cooperative Management Plan asevident from the conservation areaidentified in the 2000 CooperativeManagement Plan.

Our Response: It is unclear what thecommenter is referring to in regard to anincrease in the area of potentialsalamander habitat. We assume they arereferring to the area of salamanderhabitat in the New Mexico EndemicSalamander Team CooperativeManagement Plan, but that was notspecified. The Service recognizes there

are differences in the total areasidentified in the New Mexico EndemicSalamander Team CooperativeManagement Plan and the proposedlisting rule. This difference is due to thedifferent purposes of identifying habitat.The areas identified by the New MexicoEndemic Salamander Team in theCooperative Management Plan are areasonly on National Forest lands that weredelineated by combining distributiondata with on-the-ground knowledge ofsalamander natural history and habitatpotentials (New Mexico EndemicSalamander Team 2000, p. 13) with the

intended purpose of protecting areasknown to be important to the speciesbased on occupancy from actions thatmight occur there. The CooperativeManagement Plan identified 146,890acres (ac) (59,444 hectares (ha)) ofsalamander habitat on the Santa FeNational Forest for management andconservation of the species (NewMexico Endemic Salamander Team2000, p. 14). During our process ofdetermining critical habitat for the

Jemez Mountains salamander (77 FR56482 September 12, 2012; 78 FR 9876



9/29


February 12, 2013), we proposeddesignating 56,897 ac (23,025 ha) onUSFS lands on which are found thosephysical or biological features essentialto the conservation of the species andwhich may require special managementconsiderations or protections. However,the occupancy status of salamanderhabitat outside of the proposed critical

habitat boundaries is not fullydetermined and may be larger than thearea initially identified in theCooperative Management Plan.

(12) Comment: With the exception ofthe discussion of fire interval, theproposed rule makes little distinction

between dry and wet mixed conifer.Therefore, it is unclear how the USFSwould manage mixed conifer stands asdescribed in the proposed rule.

Our Response: The proposed rule andthis final rule are not intended toprescribe to agencies how to specificallymanage any forest type under theirpurview. However, we are interested inworking with land managers to findsolutions to minimize adverse effects tothreatened or endangered species andtheir habitat while conductingmanagement actions. In addition, we areinterested in collaborating on actionsthat will help the salamander recover tothe point where it is no longerconsidered to be endangered orthreatened.

(13) Comment: The Service refers tothe number of surveys that resulted inno salamanders being found as the mainevidence that the species is in decline.Yet the USFS continues to find

salamanders even during poor surveyconditions. Recent salamander detectionresults could be influenced fromhistorical overcollection, previoussurvey efforts, and drought with lowprecipitation during the monsoonseason. Because of the multiplevariables that influence salamanderdetections, it is unclear how the Servicecan determine that salamanderpopulations are declining due to currentmanagement while new salamanderlocations are detected annually (four in2011 and three in 2012).

Our Response: The commenter does

not identify a specific survey report forus to reference. We have requested thedata, but at the time of this final rule,we have not received the information.However, in the Status of the Speciessection of this final rule, below, we statethat, despite our inability to quantifypopulation size or trends for thesalamander, the qualitative data (datathat are observable, but not measurable)provide information for potentialinferences. Based on these inferences,we believe that the persistence of thesalamander may vary across the range of

the species. For example, in somelocalities where the salamander wasonce considered abundant or common,the salamander is now rarely detected orhas not been recently detected at all(New Mexico Heritage Program 2010aand b, spreadsheets). The number ofareas where salamanders were oncepresent, but have not been observed

during more recent surveys, has alsoincreased (New Mexico HeritageProgram 2010a and b, spreadsheets).

Alternatively, there are two localitieson the Valles Caldera National Preservewhere the salamander continues to berelatively abundant (e.g., approximately30 salamanders observed in a day eachat Redondo Border located in the centralportion of the Valles Caldera NationalPreserve and on a slope in the northeastportion of the Valles Caldera NationalPreserve compared to most other recentdetections throughout its range. Still,the number of individuals recently

found at the two localities on the VallesCaldera National Preserve is far lessthan other historical records throughoutthe species range. For example, innortheastern Sandoval County wherethe species was first 659 individual

Jemez Mountain salamanders werecaptured in a single year in 1970, 394of which were captured in a singlemonth (Williams 1976, p. 26). Currently,there is no known location where thenumber of salamanders observed issimilar to that observed in 1970. Finally,all three peer reviewers confirmed thatthe information contained within thisrule is scientifically sound, based on a

combination of reasonable facts,assumptions, and conclusions. One peerreviewer specifically stated thatassumptions made in the section aboutpopulation abundances and trends aregenerally typical for this type ofsalamander, that the risks or threats tothe species are not undervalued, and ifthe threats are not managed, then theprobability for a continued downwardtrend of this animal with extinction aneventual outcome is foreseeable.

(14) Comment: Peer reviewers of theproposed rule should include impartialexperts in the fields of herpetology, fire

ecology, and forest ecology specific tothe southwest to evaluate the multitudeof assumptions.

Our Response: Four of the seven peerreviewers we requested informationfrom have expertise in the fields ofherpetology, plethodontid salamander

biology, fire ecology, and forest ecology.(15) Comment: The use of the Wyman

and Hawksley-Lescault (1987) citationdoes not appear applicable to changes insoil pH from wildfire.

Our Response: The purpose of thiscitation is to demonstrate that changes

in soil pH could be an important factorin plethodontid salamander biology

because changes in pH can affect theirphysiology. We have clarified thelanguage of this final rule in sectionBiology above, and Fire Exclusion,Suppression, and Severe WildlandFires below.

(16) Comment: The example for

modifying fire management techniquesto include not using flares to ignite largedecaying logs or modifying chemicaluse in salamander habitat wouldeliminate the use of prescribed fire insalamander habitat. Almost all ignitionsrequire the use of chemicals, whetherpetroleum fuels in drip torches, orpotassium permanganate in ballsdropped from a helicopter. Thesechemicals are mostly consumed in theprocess of getting fire on the ground andare unlikely to leave residue that couldaffect the salamander.

Our Response: We are not suggesting

that prescribed fire be eliminated insalamander habitat or that firemanagement techniques be modified ina way that would prevent the use ofprescribed fire in salamander habitat.Prescribed fire is clearly a necessary toolfor managing forests in the JemezMountains and in salamander habitat.Furthermore, some activities, such asprescribed fire, can benefit thesalamander and its habitat.

(17) Comment: The Service issued abiological opinion for the Fire RetardantBiological Assessment prepared by theUSFS and should have all relevant

information in their project recordconcerning whether chemicals in fireretardants or foams are a threat to thesalamander.

Our Response: We have reviewed theadministrative record for the FireRetardant consultation between theUSFS and the Service and did not findinformation to assess whether fireretardants or foams impacted thesalamander. Measures were put in placeto avoid aquatic amphibians, but noanalyses were done for any terrestrialamphibian.

(18) Comment: The proposed rulegives the widening of State Highway126 as an example of where theConservation Agreement failed, yetrecommendations from the New MexicoEndemic Salamander Team wereconsidered and efforts were taken tominimize effects to the JemezMountains salamander in that area, eventhough the Federal HighwayAdministration undertook the project.The proposed rule neglects to mentionthe coordination between the NewMexico Endemic Salamander Team andthe USFS on projects since the signing



10/29


of the agreement, even after theagreement expired in 2010.

Our Response: In regard to therealignment of Highway 126, actionagencies included the Federal HighwayAdministration and the USFS. Whilethe project was discussed with the NewMexico Endemic Salamander Team, and

some efforts were made (e.g., anexperimental salvage and relocation ofJemez Mountains salamanders from thefootprint of the realignment and fellingtrees as future potential cover objects inareas adjacent to the road), the projectstill resulted in a large impact(permanent and complete fragmentationof the population and destruction ofhabitat) in a small area with relativelymoderate salamander densities. Weanalyzed the adequacy of existingconservation measures at removing orreducing threats to the salamanderacross the range of the species such that

listing the salamander under the Act isnot warranted, and found that existingconservation measures are not adequate.The Highway 126 project is an exampleof how conservation measures asprovided by the CooperativeManagement Plan are inadequate toprotect the salamander and its habitat.Further, the Cooperative ManagementPlan and the now expired ConservationAgreement only applied to a portion ofthe range of the salamander (someportions of USFS lands), applied tomanagement actions that the USFSmight take, does not specifically addresssignificant threats (e.g., severe wildlandfire, climate change) or actions thatcould be threats if plans to minimizeimpacts to the salamander are notconsidered (e.g., forest managementsuch as thinning, prescribed fire), anddo not provide specific mechanisms toprotect the species (only that the NewMexico Endemic Salamander Teamwould provide discretionaryrecommendations). The CooperativeManagement Plan and the expiredConservation Agreement are consideredinadequate for providing protection to

the salamander or alleviating threats tothe salamander or its habitat.

Comment From Other Federal Agencies

(19) Comment: A new conservationplan should be created in lieu of listingthe salamander as an endangeredspecies.

Our Response: The Act does notprovide authority to the Service to delaylisting in order to wait for future,speculative conservation plans to bedeveloped and implemented.

Comments From the New MexicoDepartment of Agriculture (NMDA)

(20) Comment: Listing the JemezMountains salamander will be counter-productive to solving the problem ofpoor watershed health in the JemezMountains and will slow the pace ofongoing forest restoration work. Inaddition, listing could alter the Statesability to acquire matching funds.

Our Response: Listing the JemezMountains salamander does notpreclude forest restoration ormanagement practices, including, butnot limited to, prescribed fire andthinning treatments, restoration of thefrequency and spatial extent of suchdisturbances as regeneration treatments,and implementation of prescribednatural fire management plans wherefeasible. We consider use of suchtreatments to be compatible with theecosystem management of habitatmosaics and the best way to reduce the

threats of catastrophic wildfire to JemezMountains salamander and provideprotection for the species. In addition,listing the Jemez Mountains salamanderdoes not preclude adaptive managementor the incorporation of new informationon the interaction between naturaldisturbance events and forest ecology.We continue to support soundecosystem management and themaintenance of biodiversity, and wewill fully support land managementagencies in addressing the managementof fire to protect and enhance naturalresources under their stewardship.

(21) Comment: The Service shouldpartner with ongoing efforts, such as theSouthwest Jemez Collaborative ForestLandscape Restoration Project, toeffectively improve the watershedhealth of the Jemez Mountains, thus

benefiting the salamander.Our Response: The Service recognizes

the importance of forming andsupporting partnerships to achievemutually identified goals and objectives,and agrees that strong partnerships andcollaborations are necessary for therestoration and conservation of ournatural resources. We appreciate theongoing efforts and collaborations withour existing partners, includingmembers of the Southwest JemezCollaborative Forest LandscapeRestoration Project, encourage ourpartners to work with us to incorporatespecific goals and objectives for theprotection of the Jemez Mountainssalamander and its habitat, and committo long-term monitoring, without whichit is difficult to evaluate theeffectiveness of conservation measuresintended to benefit salamander. We alsolook forward to the establishment of

new partnerships to improveconservation.

(22) Comment: The Service shouldwithdraw its proposal to list the JemezMountains salamander as anendangered species, because criticalwatershed restoration efforts wouldcontinue and these efforts couldcontinue without the burdensome

regulations associated with the Act.Our Response: Section 4 of the Act

and its implementing regulations (50CFR 424) set forth the procedures foradding species to the Federal Lists ofEndangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants. A species may bedetermined to be an endangered orthreatened species due to one or moreof the five factors described in section4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present orthreatened destruction, modification, orcurtailment of its habitat or range; (B)overutilization for commercial,recreational, scientific, or educationalpurposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)the inadequacy of existing regulatorymechanisms; or (E) other natural ormanmade factors affecting its continuedexistence. Listing actions may bewarranted based on any of the abovethreat factors, singly or in combination.The purpose of the Act is to protect andrecover imperiled species and theecosystems upon which they depend.The regulatory requirements under theAct were determined by Congress toensure that otherwise lawful actionsthat affect species listed under the Actare not likely to jeopardize thecontinued existence of those listed

species. The Service will work withFederal agencies during consultation,when required, to develop watershedrestoration efforts. The Service canprovide technical assistance to non-Federal projects to develop bestmanagement practices or alternatives.

Comments From the Santa Clara Pueblo

(23) Comment: Santa Clara Pueblo isvery interested in restoring, promoting,and sustaining healthy forest lands,which will benefit the Jemez Mountainssalamander.

Our Response: The Service

appreciates comments received fromSanta Clara Pueblo, welcomescontinued input on all aspects ofrestoring, promoting, and sustaininghealthy forest lands in the JemezMountains, and will continue to beavailable to provide technical assistanceas may be requested by the tribe.

(24) Comment: Santa Clara Pueblostated that salvage logging after wildfirecan help alleviate soils repelling waterthrough disturbance of the soilsresulting from pulling the salvage logsto a landing area, and the Service



11/29


should be careful not to draw the wrongconclusion about the threats posed bysalvage logging. Guidelines could bedeveloped for managing coarse woodydebris following wildfire that includesome salvage logging that would also

benefit the salamander.Our Response: See our response to

Comment 6 under Comments from Peer

Reviewers, above.(25) Comment: Santa Clara Pueblo

commented that responsible timberharvesting can increase available soilmoisture because transpiration ofvegetation (the process by which plantsrelease moisture into the air) isdecreased and more soil moisture

becomes available for residual plantgrowth (and the salamander). Althoughit is true that reduced shading couldincrease surface temperatures, thatwould have little effect at the root levelor below where the salamanderprimarily resides.

Our Response: In the ForestComposition and StructureConversions section of this final rule,the Service has clarified how thechanges in forest composition andstructure impacts the salamander in itshabitat.

Public Comments

(26) Comment: A public commenterstated that, before the proposed rule ismade final, agencies should jointlyreview the Memorandum of Agreementto determine whether it can be updatedor revised in a way that would continueto protect the salamander without

allowing it to be listed.Our Response: It is unclear to what

Memorandum of Agreement thecommenter is referring. We areassuming the commenter is referring tothe New Mexico Endemic SalamanderTeam Cooperative Management Plan.See our response to Comment 11 underComments From the U.S. Forest Service.

(27) Comment: Another commentercould not determine from the text ifdifferent logging practices weredistinguished, and believe that clear-cutlogging would be detrimental to thesalamander and its habitat, but that

other commercial logging could beconducted in a way that is not. Thethreat from logging probably is real, butcomes from the disruption of thevertical underground passages morethan from tree removal. The loggingthreat is minimal, because industry

barely exists in the area.Our Response: As stated in our

proposed rule and this final rule, clear-cutting degrades forest floormicrohabitats for salamanders byeliminating shading and leaf litter,increasing soil surface temperature, and

reducing moisture (Petranka 1998, p.16). Significant differences in habitatfeatures (soil pH, litter depth, and logsize) were reported between the loggedand unlogged sites (Ramotnik 1986, p.8). On the unlogged sites, salamanderswere associated with cover objects thatwere closer together and more decayed,and that had a higher canopy cover,

greater moss and lichen cover, andlower surrounding needle cover,compared to cover objects on loggedsites (Ramotnik 1986, p. 8). The bestavailable scientific and commercial datadoes not indicate that there is an impactto vertical underground passages.

(28) Comment: A public commenterstated that the scientific recordaccumulated to date is not sufficientlyrobust to warrant further regulatoryaction. Additional data should becollected before listing the species asendangered. The Service shouldwithdraw the proposal to list the Jemez

Mountains salamander as endangeredbecause of lack of sound scientificevidence. The proposed rule is flawed

because it relies too much onspeculation and assumption rather thanthe best scientific information availableas required.

Our Response: See our response toComment 9 under Comments From U.S.Forest Service, above.

(29) Comment: Listing the JemezMountains salamander may have theunintended consequences ofundermining efforts to reduce theidentified principal threat to thesalamander, the risk of catastrophic

wildfire. Listing the Jemez Mountainssalamander as an endangered speciesmay further slow efforts of theSouthwest Jemez MountainsCollaborative Forest LandscapeRestoration project because of theadditional regulatory requirement forsection 7 consultation.

Our Response: Listing of the JemezMountains salamander does notpreclude the proactive treatmentsnecessary to reduce the risk ofcatastrophic fire or managing forests torestore them to old growth conditions.We recognize that vegetative structural

and landscape changes may requireproactive management to restore anappropriate distribution of age classes,control regeneration densities, andreintroduce some measure of naturaldisturbance processes such as fireevents, and will need adaptivemanagement and the incorporation ofnew information as it becomesavailable. We continue to support soundecosystem management, and we willfully support land management agenciesin addressing the management of fire toprotect and enhance natural resources

under their stewardship. We recognizethe importance of implementingrestoration projects such as theSouthwest Jemez MountainsCollaborative Forest LandscapeRestoration project. We do notanticipate significant delays resultingfrom consultation, as there is overlap

between salamander habitat and

Mexican spotted owl habitat, which willalso require consultation under section7. Nonetheless, we will work tominimize any potential additionaldelays that may result from therequirement for consultation undersection 7.

(30) Comment: No evidence ispresented that time above ground isnecessary for the salamander life cycle.Fallen logs are considered important inthe rule; however, fallen logs only seemto be convenient places searched by the

biologists when looking for thesalamander rather than places important

to the salamanders life cycle.Our Response: Aboveground surfaceactivity during wet surface conditions isa documented characteristic of thenatural history of the Jemez Mountainssalamander. Also, because stomachcontents consist primarily ofaboveground, ground-dwellinginvertebrates, and plethodontidsalamanders store fat reserves in theirtails for energetic use when foragingopportunities are reduced or do notexist (e.g., underground), we concludethat aboveground activity is importantfor feeding. Additionally, based onreproductive studies (see Biology

section of this rule), this species matesin July and August, which coincideswith the salamanders abovegroundactivity period. We, therefore, concludethat time aboveground is necessary forforaging and mating. Cover objects,including logs, are used by salamanderswhen aboveground. As explained in theproposed and final rules, these coverobjects provide shelter and highmoisture retreats while salamanders areaboveground and are necessary forhydration, because overall surfaceactivity usually dehydrates animals. Inaddition, fallen logs may be relatively

more important to the species thanrocks because they are able to holdmoisture for longer periods, and can bea buffer to the increased temperaturesresulting from habitat alterations orclimate change.

(31) Comment: Thinning to reduce therisk of catastrophic wildfire couldimpact the vertical undergroundpassages through use of machinery.Forest restoration treatments thatminimize impacts and maximize

benefits to the salamander need to betested. The Services call for research



12/29


into thinning techniques and theireffects on the salamander is stronglyendorsed.

Our Response: We agree that methodsfor forest restoration treatments thathave the potential to significantly affectthe salamander and its habitat should betested to identify options that couldminimize impacts and maximize

benefits to the salamander. The Serviceis collaborating with the USFS, TheNature Conservancy, NMDGF, andothers on a project to measure effects ofprescribed fire to large downed loghabitat components. We believecollaborations such as this will provideinformation on maintaining importantsalamander habitat features whileconducting forest restoration.

Summary of Changes From theProposed Rule

During the open comment periods, wewere asked to add information toprovide clarifications in some areas. Weadded clarifying language regarding ourunderstanding of habitat variablesincluding subsurface rock and geology;hillshading; canopy closure as it relatesto microclimates; populationconnectivity; the disease Ranavirus; thecurrent Forest Planning Rule; andtimber harvest and soil moisturerelationships. Some information we hadnot previously considered was provided

by the USFS. This additionalinformation did not alter our threatsassessment.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

SpeciesSection 4 of the Act and its

implementing regulations (50 CFR part424) set forth the procedures for addingspecies to the Federal Lists ofEndangered and Threatened Wildlifeand Plants. A species may bedetermined to be an endangered orthreatened species due to one or moreof the five factors described in section4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present orthreatened destruction, modification, orcurtailment of its habitat or range; (B)overutilization for commercial,recreational, scientific, or educational

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)the inadequacy of existing regulatorymechanisms; or (E) other natural ormanmade factors affecting its continuedexistence. Listing actions may bewarranted based on any of the abovethreat factors, singly or in combination.Each of these factors is discussed below.

A. The Present or ThreatenedDestruction, Modification, orCurtailment of Its Habitat or Range

The principal threats to the habitat ofthe Jemez Mountains salamander

include historical fire exclusion (the actof preventing fire) and suppression (theact of putting out fire) and severewildland fires; forest composition andstructure conversions; post-firerehabilitation; forest and firemanagement; roads, trails, and habitatfragmentation; and recreation.

Fire Exclusion, Suppression, and SevereWildland Fires

In the Jemez Mountains, over 100years of fire suppression and fireexclusion (along with livestock grazingand other stressors) have altered forestcomposition and structure, andincreased the threat of wildfire inPonderosa pine and mixed-coniferforests (Belsky and Blumenthal 1997, p.318). Fire has been an important processin the Jemez Mountains for at leastseveral thousand years (Allen 1989, p.69), indicating that the salamandercoexisted with historical fire regimes.Frequent, low-intensity surface fires;and patchy, small-scale (hundreds ofacres instead of thousands of acres),high-intensity fires in the JemezMountains historically maintainedsalamander habitat. These fires spreadwidely through grassy understory fuels,or erupted on very small scales (acouple of hundred acres compared toseveral hundreds or thousands of acres).The natural fire intervals prior to the1900s ranged from 5 to 25 years acrossthe Jemez Mountains (Allen 2001, p. 4).Dry mixed-conifer forests burned onaverage every 12 years, whereas wetmixed-conifer forests burned on average

every 20 years. Historically, patchysurface fires within mixed-coniferforests would have thinned stands andcreated natural fuel breaks that wouldlimit the extent of fires. Still, in very dryyears, there is evidence of historicalfires occurring across entire watersheds,

but they did not burn with high severityover entire mountain sides (JemezMountains Adaptive PlanningWorkshop Session II Final Notes 2010,p. 7). Aspen stands are evidence ofhistorical patchy crown fires thatrepresent the relatively small-scale,stand-replacing fires that have

historically occurred in the JemezMountains, which are also associatedwith significantly dry years (Margolis etal. 2007, p. 2236).

These historical fire patterns wereinterrupted in the late 1800s through theelimination of fine fuels, as a result oflivestock overgrazing and historicalmanaged fire suppression. Thisinterruption and exclusion of firepromoted the development of highforest stand densities with heavyaccumulations of dead and downedfuel, and growth of ladder fuels (the

dense mid-story trees that favordevelopment of crown fires) (Allen2001, pp. 56). In fact, past fireexclusion activities in this areaconverted historically low- to moderate-severity fire regimes with small, patchyfires to high-severity, large-scale, stand-replacing fires that have the potential tosignificantly destroy or degrade

salamander habitat (USFS 2009a, pp. 89). The disruption of the natural cycleof fire and subsequent accumulation ofcontinuous fuels within the coniferousforests on south- and north-facing slopeshas increased the chances of a severewildfire affecting large areas ofsalamander habitat within the JemezMountains (USFS 2009a, 2009b).

In recent years, prescribed fire atValles Caldera National Preserve has

been limited, with only one burn in2004 that was described as creating apositive vegetation response (ENTRIX2009, p. 97). A prescribed fire plan is

expected to be developed (ENTRIX2009, p. 97) because of concern forsevere wildland fires to occur(Parmenter 2009, cited in Service 2010).The planned Scooter Peak prescribed

burn between the Valles CalderaNational Preserve and BandelierNational Monument is a fuel-reductionproject in occupied salamander habitat,

but is small in scale (approximately 960ac (390 ha)) (ENTRIX 2009, p. 2).Although future thinning of secondarygrowth may partially reduce the risk ofsevere wildland fires in areas, theseefforts are not likely at a sufficientgeographical scale to lessen the overall

threat to the salamander.The frequency of large-scale, high-

severity, stand-replacing wildland fireshas increased in the latter part of the20th century in the Jemez Mountains.This increase is due to landscape-wide

buildup of woody fuels associated withremoval of grassy fuels from extremeyear-round livestock overgrazing in thelate 1800s, and subsequent firesuppression (Allen 1989, pp. 9497;2001, pp. 56). The majority of wildfiresover the past 20 years have exhibitedcrown fire behavior and burned in thedirection of the prevailing south or

southwest winds (USFS 2009a, p. 17).The first severe wildland fire in theJemez Mountains was the La Mesa Firein 1977, burning 15,400 ac (6,250 ha).Subsequent fires included the BuchanonFire in 1993 (11,543 ac (4,671 ha)), theDome Fire in 1996 (16,516 ac (6,684ha)), the Oso Fire in 1997 (6,508 ac(2,634 ha)), the Cerro Grande Fire in2000 (42,970 ac (17,390 ha)), and theLakes Fire Complex (Lakes and BMGFires) in 2002 (4,026 ac (1,629 ha))(Cummer 2005, pp. 34). Between 1995and 2010, severe wildland fires have



13/29


burned about 36 percent of modeled orknown salamander habitat on USFSlands (USFS 2009, p. 1). Following theCerro Grande Fire, the GeneralAccounting Office reported that theseconditions are common in much of thewestern part of the United Statesturning areas into a virtual tinderbox(General Accounting Office 2000, p. 15).

In 2011, the Las Conchas Fire burned150,590 ac (60,942 ha) in the JemezMountains, and, until the 2012Whitewater Complex Fire insouthwestern New Mexico, Las Conchaswas New Mexicos largest wildfire todate (USFS 2011a, p. 1). The LasConchas Fire burned approximately17,780 ac (7,195 ha) of modeled orknown salamander habitat in the east,south, and southeastern part of its range.In the eastern portion of thesalamanders range, the ThompsonRidge Fire burned a total of 23,965 ac(9,698 ha) in 2013. This demonstrates

that the majority of salamander habitathas either recently burned withuncharacteristic wildfire or that thethreat of severe wildland fires tosalamander habitat remains high, due totons of dead and down fuel,overcrowded tree conditions leading topoor forest health, and dense thickets ofsmall-diameter trees. There is a 36percent probability of having at leastone large fire of 4,000 ac (over 1,600 ha)every year for the next 20 years in thesouthwest Jemez Mountains (USFS2009a, p. 19). Moreover, the probabilityof exceeding this estimated threshold of4,000 ac (1,600 ha) burned in the same

time period is 65 percent (USFS 2009a,p. 19). The canyon topography in thewestern portion of the salamandersrange aligns with south winds and steepslopes, making this area highlysusceptible to crown fire (USFS 2009a,pp. 2425). Moreover, we found that therisk of burning is not eliminatedfollowing severe wildfires. Some areasthat previously burned during the 2000Cerro Grande Fire burned again duringthe 2011 Las Conchas Fire burning theremaining forested mosaic areas anddead trees left after the Cerro GrandeFire.

Increases in soil and microhabitat(immediate localized environment thathas a unique set of ecological conditionswithin a larger habitat) temperatures,which generally increase withincreasing burn severity, can haveprofound effects on salamander

behavior and physiology and can,therefore, influence their ability topersist subsequent to severe wildlandfires. Following the Cerro Grande Fire,soil temperatures were recorded underpotential salamander cover objects ingeographic areas occupied by the

salamander (Cummer and Painter 2007,pp. 2637). Soil temperatures in areas ofhigh-severity burn exceeded thesalamanders thermal tolerance (thetemperature that causes death) (Spotila1972, p. 97; Cummer and Painter 2007,pp. 2831). Because widespread dryconditions are an important factorcontributing to the occurrence of severe

wildfire, when severe wildfire occurs,most salamanders are likely protected insubterranean habitat and are not killeddirectly from wildfire. However, even inmoderate and high-severity burnedareas where fires did not result in thedeath of salamanders, the microhabitatconditions, such as those resulting fromthe Cerro Grande Wildfire, would limitthe timing and duration that thesalamanders could be active aboveground (feeding and mating). Moreover,elevated temperatures lead to increasesin oxygen consumption, heart rate, andmetabolic rate, resulting in decreased

body water (the percentage of water inthe body) and body mass (Whitford1968, pp. 247251). Physiological stressfrom elevated temperatures may alsoincrease susceptibility to disease andparasites. Effects from temperatureincreases are discussed in greater detailunder Factor E, below.

As discussed in the Biology sectionabove, soil pH may affect salamanders.Severe wildland fires typically increasesoil pH, which could affect thesalamander. Changes in soil pHfollowing wildfire could impact thesalamander, either by making the

habitat less suitable, or throughphysiological stress. The existing risk ofwildfire on the Valles Caldera NationalPreserve and surrounding areas,including the Santa Fe National Forest,is uncharacteristically high and is asignificant departure from historicalconditions over 100 years ago (VallesCaldera National Preserve 2010, p. 3.1;Allen 1989, pp. ii346; 2001, pp. 110).Several regulatory attempts have beenmade to address and correct the alteredecological balance of New Mexicosforests resulting from a century of firesuppression, logging, and livestock

grazing. Congress enacted theCommunity Forest Restoration Act topromote healthy watersheds and reducethe threat of large, high-intensitywildfires, insect infestation, and diseasein the forests in New Mexico (H.R. 2389,Pub. L. 106393). The subsequentOmnibus Public Land Management Act,also called the Forest LandscapeRestoration Act (Title IV, Pub. L. IIIII, 2009), established a national programthat encourages ecological, economic,and social sustainability and utilizationof forest restoration byproducts to

benefit local rural economies andimprove forest health. As a result, theSanta Fe National Forest and partnersprepared the Southwest JemezMountains Landscape Assessmentdesigned to reduce the threat of severewildland fire in the western andsouthern part of the salamanders rangeover the next 10 years (USFS 2009, p.

2).In 2011, this Collaborative Forest

Landscape Restoration project wasselected and is eligible for up to $4million per year to restoreapproximately 210,000 ac (85,000 ha) offorest in the southwestern JemezMountains (USFS 2011b, pp. 12), buta lack of matching funds may limit thegeographical extent of this project.Moreover, this project will noteffectively address the short-term risk ofsevere wildland fire to the species

because treatments are anticipated to beimplemented slowly, over the next

decade or more. Finally, it is unknownwhether the proposed treatments willeffectively reduce the risk of severewildfire to the salamander or its habitatwithout causing additional harm to thespecies, because mea

fed register

Documents