Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus, 40132-40138 [E9-19024]
Download as PDF
40132
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Date: August 5, 2009.
Al Matera,
Director, Office of Acquisition Policy.
[FR Doc. E9–19171 Filed 8–10–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2009–0041] [MO–
922105 0083–B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a
Petition To List the Jemez Mountains
Salamander (Plethodon
neomexicanus) as Threatened or
Endangered With Critical Habitat
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90–day petition
finding and initiation of a status review.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90–day finding on a petition to list the
Jemez Mountains salamander
(Plethodon neomexicanus) (salamander)
as threatened or endangered and
designate critical habitat under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. Following a review of the
petition, we find that the petition
provides substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
listing the Jemez Mountains salamander
may be warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this notice, we are
initiating a status review of the species
to determine if the petitioned action is
warranted. To ensure that the status
review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting scientific and commercial data
and other information regarding this
species. At the conclusion of this
review, we will issue a 12–month
finding to determine if the petitioned
action is warranted. We will make a
determination on critical habitat for this
species if we initiate a listing action.
DATES: We made the finding announced
in this document on August 11, 2009.
To allow us adequate time to conduct
this review, we request that we receive
information on or before October 13,
2009.
You may submit
information by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Search for docket
FWS–R2–ES–2009–0041 and then
follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:32 Aug 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R2–
ES–2009–0041; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information received
on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see the Information Solicited section
below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wally ‘‘J’’ Murphy, Field Supervisor,
New Mexico Ecological Services Office,
2105 Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM
87113, by telephone (505–346–2525) or
by facsimile (505–346–2542). Persons
who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Solicited
When we make a finding that a
petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a
species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly commence a
review of the status of the species. To
ensure that the status review is
complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial
information, we are soliciting
information on the status of the Jemez
Mountains salamander. We request
information from the public, other
concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning the status
of the salamander. We are seeking
information regarding:
(1) The historical and current status
and distribution of the Jemez Mountains
salamander, its biology and ecology, and
ongoing conservation measures for the
species and its habitat;
(2) The species’ population size and
population trend;
(3) Its taxonomy; and
(4) Information relevant to the factors
that are the basis for making a listing
determination for a species under
section 4(a) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species’ habitat or
range;
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes;
(c) Disease or predation;
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms; or
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence and
threats to the species or its habitat.
In this finding, we have identified
gaps in the information provided in the
petition to help to focus the public on
areas where we would like relevant data
submitted. If we determine that listing
the Jemez Mountains salamander is
warranted, we intend to propose critical
habitat to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable at the time we
propose to list the species. Therefore,
with regard to areas within the
geographical range currently occupied
by the salamander, we also request data
and information on what may constitute
physical or biological features essential
to the conservation of the species, where
these features are currently found, and
whether any of these features may
require special management
considerations or protection. In
addition, we request data and
information regarding whether there are
areas outside the geographical area
occupied by the species that are
essential to the conservation of the
species. Please provide specific
comments and information as to what,
if any, critical habitat you think we
should propose for designation if the
species is proposed for listing, and why
such habitat meets the requirements of
the Act.
We will base our 12–month finding
on a review of the best scientific and
commercial information available,
including all information received
during this public comment period.
Please note that submissions merely
stating support for or opposition to the
action under consideration, without
providing supporting information,
although noted, will not be considered
in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that
determinations as to whether any
species is a threatened or endangered
species must be made ‘‘solely on the
basis of the best scientific and
commercial data available.’’ Based on
the status review, we will issue a 12–
month finding on the petition, as
provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
You may submit your information
concerning this finding by one of the
methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section.
If you submit information via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
submission—including any personal
identifying information—will be posted
on the website. If your submission is
made via a hardcopy that includes
personal identifying information, you
may request at the top of your document
that we withhold this information from
public review. However, we cannot
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Proposed Rules
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We will post all hardcopy submissions
on https://www.regulations.gov. Please
include sufficient information with your
comments to allow us to verify any
scientific or commercial information
you include.
Information and materials we receive,
as well as supporting documentation we
used in preparing this finding, will be
available for public inspection on https://
www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business
hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, New Mexico Ecological
Services Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires
that we make a finding on whether a
petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with
the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files. To the maximum
extent practicable, we are to make this
finding within 90 days of our receipt of
the petition and publish our notice of
this finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our standard for substantial
information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90–
day petition finding is ‘‘that amount of
information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we
find that the petition presented
substantial information, we are required
to promptly commence a review of the
status of the species.
On October 15, 2008, we received a
petition dated October 9, 2008, from
WildEarth Guardians requesting that the
Jemez Mountains salamander be listed
as threatened or endangered under the
Act, and critical habitat be designated.
The petition clearly identified itself as
such, and included the requisite
identification information for the
petitioner, as required by 50 CFR
424.14(a). In a November 26, 2008, letter
to the petitioner, we responded that we
had reviewed the petition and
determined that an emergency listing
was not necessary. We also stated that,
to the maximum extent practicable, we
would address their petition within 90
days.
Previous Federal Actions
We initially considered the Jemez
Mountains salamander for listing under
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:32 Aug 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
the Act in the early 1980s (GAO August
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 and/or
increasing threats.
On May 30, 1991, the Service, the
USDA Forest Service (Forest Service),
and the New Mexico Department of
Game and Fish (NMDGF) signed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
outlining actions to be taken to protect
the salamander and its habitat on Forest
Service lands, including the formation
of a team of agency biologists to
immediately implement the MOA 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
MOA (59 FR 11469). 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 and/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 Lists 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
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40133
were dropped from the list in order to
reduce confusion about the conservation
status of these species, and to clarify
that the Service no longer regarded
these species 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 Forest
Service, finalized a Cooperative
Management Plan for the salamander on
lands administered by the Forest
Service (Management Plan), and the
agencies signed an updated
Conservation Agreement that
superseded the MOA. The stated
purpose of the Conservation Agreement
and the 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 Management Plan
was incorporated into the Santa Fe
National Forest Plan.
Species Information
The Jemez Mountains salamander is a
member of the family of lungless
salamanders (Plethodontidae), the
largest family of salamanders. The
salamander is uniformly dark brown
above, with occasional fine gold/brassy
stippling dorsally (on the back and
sides) and is sooty gray ventrally
(underside). The body form is slender
and elongate. The salamander possesses
foot webbing and a reduced fifth toe.
The salamander was originally reported
as Spelerpes multiplicatus (=Eurycea
multiplicata) in 1913 (Degenhardt et al.
1996, p. 27); however, it was described
as a new and distinct species (Plethodon
neomexicanus) in 1950 (Stebbins and
Riemer, pp. 73-80).
Two species of plethodontid
salamanders occur in New Mexico: The
Jemez Mountains salamander and the
Sacramento Mountains salamander
(Aneides hardii). Molecular studies on
plethodontid salamanders in North
America indicate that western species of
the genus Plethodon (the woodland
salamanders) may be more closely
related to species of the genus Aneides
(the climbing salamanders) than to
eastern species of Plethodon (Larson et
al., 1981, p. 419; Mahoney 2001, p. 174).
The relationship of the Jemez
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
40134
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Mountains salamander to other western
plethodontids is not completely
understood, but the salamander is
considered basal (the earliest grouping
that branches to larger groupings of
relative relatedness) (Mahoney 2001, p.
184). No subspecies of the salamander
are recognized.
The Jemez Mountains salamander is
strictly terrestrial, does not possess
lungs, and does not require standing
surface water for any life stage.
Respiration occurs through the skin and
requires a moist microclimate for gas
exchange. Reproduction in the wild
remains unobserved, but it is presumed
that the salamander lays eggs in spaces
underground. Fully-formed salamanders
hatch from the eggs. Based on
examination of 57 female salamanders,
Williams (1978, p. 475) concluded that
females likely lay 7 or 8 eggs every other
year, either in mid-August or, more
likely, the spring after mating occurs in
late July and August. Sexual maturity is
reached at 3 to 4 years in females and
3 years in males (Degenhardt et al. 1996,
p. 28).
The salamander occurs in the Jemez
Mountains in northern New Mexico in
Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, and Sandoval
Counties. The species predominantly
occurs in mixed-conifer forest at an
elevation between 2,200 and 2,900
meters (7,220 and 9,510 feet), consisting
mainly of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii), blue spruce (Picea pungens),
Engelman spruce (Picea engelmannii),
white fir (Abies concolor), limber pine
(Pinus flexilis), and aspen (Populus
tremuloides) (Degenhardt et al. 1996, p.
28), but occasionally can be found in
Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa)
stands. The microhabitat is
characterized by deep, igneous,
subsurface rock with high soil moisture
(NMEST 2000, p. 2). The salamander
spends much of its life underground,
and can be found at the surface when
conditions are warm and wet, which is
typically July through September, but
the period may extend from May
through October depending on
conditions. When surface-active, the
species is usually found under rocks,
bark, logs, moss mats, or inside
decomposing logs. The species is
restricted to the moist habitats of the
Jemez Mountains.
A feeding habits study for the Jemez
Mountains salamander was conducted
by NMDGF in 1992. Salamander prey
items were diverse in size and type;
however, there were three categories of
prey that were recognized as more
important than the remaining groups:
ants, mites, and beetles (Cummer 2005,
p. 43). Cummer (2005, pp. 45–50) stated
that prey specialization on any
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:32 Aug 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
particular species of invertebrate was
unlikely in the salamander; however,
she did observe that selection of food
appeared to not be random.
Although the petitioner believes that
the number of salamanders likely
exceeds 10,000, we are not aware of any
current information from which a
population estimate can be made. The
petitioner’s population estimate was
derived from survey efforts conducted
from 1967 through 2003; however, the
petitioner acknowledges, and we agree,
that these surveys are potentially
unreliable because salamander
observations are dependent on multiple
factors, such as environmental
conditions (e.g., temperature or
moisture), detection probabilities, and
time when the observations were made.
Because of these variables, it is difficult
to determine population size or trends.
Based upon the information presented
in the petition and in our files, we
believe that a comprehensive
assessment of all of the survey and
population information is needed.
Five-Factor Evaluation
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533),
and implementing regulations at 50 CFR
424, set forth the procedures for adding
species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants. A species may be
determined to be an endangered or
threatened species due to one or more
of the five factors described in section
4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or
threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D)
the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or
manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this 90–day finding, we
evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the salamander, as
presented in the petition and other
information available in our files, is
substantial, thereby indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. Our
evaluation of this information is
presented below.
A. The Present or Threatened
Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or
Range
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that the Jemez
Mountains salamander or its habitat is
threatened by the following conditions
or actions: habitat loss and
fragmentation, climate change, stand-
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
replacing fires, fire suppression and
rehabilitation, salvage logging, slash
removal, forest thinning treatment
projects, use and construction of roads
and dams, chemical use, trail
construction, and mining. We will
address climate change and chemical
use under Factor E.
The petitioner contends that the main
threat and cause of Jemez Mountains
salamander habitat loss is extensive,
stand-replacing fires (severe fires in
which most mature trees are destroyed).
The petitioner reports on land area
burned during the Dome (1996), Cerro
Grande (2000), and BMG/Lakes (2002)
wildfires. Information in our files
indicates that these stand-replacing fires
overlapped with salamander habitat;
however the petition did not contain,
nor we do have, a complete analysis of
the extent or degree of salamander
habitat that burned. The NMEST (2000,
p. 9) stated that, ‘‘the greatest threat to
this species is thought to be the
potential for extensive stand-replacing
fires.’’ The petitioner contends that
there were negative effects to the
salamander and its habitat from the
Cerro Grande Fire, such as removal of
canopy cover and increased soil
temperatures (WildEarth Guardians
2008, pp. 23–24). Cummer and Painter
(2007, p. 26) reported significant
changes in microhabitat temperatures
following the Cerro Grande Fire. The
petitioner asserts that impacts on the
salamander and its habitat from other
stand-replacing wildfires (e.g. Dome
Fire, BMG/Lakes Fires) was likely the
same as effects from the Cerro Grande
fire. We agree; however, we are not
aware of an analysis that estimates the
amount of salamander habitat affected
by other wildfires. Finally, our files
indicate that future stand-replacing
wildfires in salamander habitat remain
a threat.
The petitioner also claims that the
effects of fire suppression and
rehabilitation activities following
wildfire threaten the Jemez Mountains
salamander. For example, the petitioner
indicates that, during the Cerro Grande
Fire, suppression activities included the
construction of 26 kilometers (km) (16
miles (mi)) of hand line (hand-dug
trenches 1.5 to 3 meters (m) (5 to 10 feet
(ft)) wide from which all combustible
material was removed), 63 km (39 mi)
of bulldozer line (larger fire breaks with
vegetation removed by bulldozing), and
safety zones; release of 514,000 liters
(135,800 gallons) of fire retardant; and
53 km (32 mi) of road improvement
resulting in vegetation removal within
30 m (100 ft) of either side of the roads
(WildEarth Guardians 2008, p. 26).
However, while information in our files
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Proposed Rules
indicates that some of these activities
occurred in salamander habitat and
corroborate some of the claims of the
petitioner on fire suppression and
rehabilitation, the petitioner does not
provide, nor are we aware of, a complete
assessment of the extent of these
activities in salamander habitat. Please
note that chemical use resulting from
fire suppression activities is addressed
separately in Factor E.
The petitioner describes how
historical grazing and fire suppression
have contributed to changes in forest
structure and composition in the Jemez
Mountains. Scientific literature (e.g.,
Allen 1989; Touchan et al. 1996)
supports this conclusion; however, we
are not aware of an assessment of how
such changes may affect the salamander
or its habitat.
The petitioner believes that salvage
logging after wildfire and associated
thinning with removal of snags and
slash in Jemez Mountains salamander
habitat has had negative impacts to
salamanders and their habitat. Logging
can interrupt the development of
salamander habitat by removing the
requisite habitat components of canopy
cover and dead and downed logs, while
increasing temperature, erosion, runoff,
and soil compaction (NMEST 2000, p.
5). Additionally, if these activities occur
when salamanders are surface active,
salvage logging could result in direct
injury or mortality to individuals. The
petitioner identifies that salvage logging
and forest thinning have been proposed
within salamander habitat, but we have
no estimate on the amount of
salamander habitat that has been
impacted by these activities.
Nevertheless, we found substantial
information indicating that the Forest
Service has conducted, and will likely
continue to conduct, salvage logging in
salamander habitat.
The petitioner asserts that habitat
alteration due to road and trail building
in salamander habitat has deleterious
effects to the Jemez Mountains
salamander and its habitat. The
petitioner believes that construction of
roads and trails fragments habitat, and
high vehicular traffic or heavy
equipment could cause excessive
vibration resulting in settling of the
subsurface rock and elimination of the
underground spaces, presumed
necessary as subterranean habitat. The
petitioner provides information on the
length of roads that were re-opened
during and subsequent to wildfire.
These roads likely affected the
salamander and its habitat through
vegetation removal, soil compaction,
and the elimination of subsurface
spaces. Roads are known to fragment
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:32 Aug 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
terrestrial salamander habitat and act as
partial barriers to movement
(deMaynadier and Hunter 2000, p. 56;
Marsh et al. 2005, p. 2004). Moreover,
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). Although the
petitioner does not quantify the amount
of salamander habitat impacted by
roads, information in our files supports
the claim that roads may have led, and
may continue to contribute in the
future, to the degradation of salamander
habitat.
The petitioner asserts that the
improvement and realignment of New
Mexico State Highway 126 (also called
Forest Highway 12) has threatened, and
will continue to threaten, the Jemez
Mountains salamander. Information
concerning the project provided by the
petitioner was found to be reliable. For
example, our files indicate that portions
of the Highway 126 project resulted in
the removal of salamander habitat as
well as the destruction of individual
salamanders and fragmentation of a
relatively isolated population of
salamanders.
The petitioner also notes that
construction and maintenance of log
skidder trails, while not likely to be as
destructive as road construction and
maintenance, still has similar effects on
the Jemez Mountains salamander. The
petitioner believes that trail
construction and salvage logging
operations are a threat to the
salamander. The petitioner correctly
indicates that approximately 4 km (2.5
mi) of trail were constructed by
bulldozer in occupied salamander
habitat.
The petitioner asserts that one of the
common techniques used to survey for
the presence or absence of the
salamander destroys habitat because it
involves destructive sampling by
rearranging cover objects such as rocks
and logs as well as tearing apart decayed
logs. We have no information regarding
the effects to salamander habitat from
survey techniques (NMEST 2000, pp.
27–36); however, we will examine this
claim more closely in our status review,
and we request any additional
information the public may have on this
potential threat.
The petitioner asserts that the
construction of dams and mining
modify Jemez Mountains salamander
habitat. Information in our files
supports the claim that dams or water
retention structures may have been
constructed in salamander habitat.
Specifically, the petitioner contends
that an extension of the El Cajete Mine
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40135
in the Jemez Mountains affects the
salamander. Our files indicate that the
Forest Service determined that the mine
would not impact the salamander
because the project was not located on
northerly or moist slopes greater than 35
to 40 percent that support mature or old
growth mixed conifer (Forest Service
1995a, pp. 12–13; Forest Service 1995b,
p. 2). At the time of the project, steep
slopes (greater than 30 percent) were
thought to be a critical element of
salamander habitat (Ramotnik 1988, p.
50). However, salamanders have been
documented in areas of no significant
slope (less than 5 percent) (NMDGF
2000, p. 8), and steep slopes are no
longer considered a requirement of
occupied habitat. Based on this more
recent information, this project may
have affected the salamander and its
habitat, and there is potential for future
mining activities to affect the
salamander and its habitat. We find that
the petition and information in our files
indicate that construction of dams and
future mining activities may result in
adverse modifications to salamander
habitat.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
The petitioner provides substantial
and reliable information that the
salamander and its habitat may be
threatened from stand-replacing fires;
salvage logging; fire suppression;
construction, maintenance, and use of
roads and trails; construction of dams;
and mining activities. The information
presented in the petition is supported
by information in our files, and presents
substantial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted
due to the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the habitat or range of the
salamander.
B. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational
Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that the
salamander is threatened by loss of
individuals through collection of
specimens and surveying. The petition
cites a report by the NMEST (2000) that
summarizes the history of collection of
the species. According to the petition,
977 Jemez Mountains salamanders were
collected for scientific purposes from
1910 to 1999. The petitioner cites the
report (NMEST 2000) in concluding that
such collecting has likely reduced
populations in localized areas. The
petitioner also cites the report (NMEST
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
40136
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Proposed Rules
2000) in asserting that a 2 person-hour
survey protocol was developed to search
for Jemez Mountains salamanders.
Following this protocol, likely cover
objects (rocks, bark, and decayed logs)
are searched for salamanders (NMEST
2000). The petition cites a NMDGF
(2000) report in claiming that this
technique can destroy habitat and that
continual searches in the same habitat
have been shown to result in a decrease
in salamander populations.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
We find that the petition presents
substantial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted
due to overutilization for scientific
purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
Information Provided in the Petition
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
The petitioner states that disease is
affecting the salamander. Information in
our files indicates that the amphibian
pathogenic fungus, Batrachochytrium
dendrobatidis (Bd), was found in one
salamander in 2003 (Cummer et al.
2005, p. 248). The individual
salamander was collected and sent to
the U.S. Geological Survey National
Wildlife Health Center in Madison,
Wisconsin, for diagnostic analysis.
Results from the analysis included a
dual infection of Bd and a bacterial
species (Cladosporium spp). The
virulence of Bd relative to the Jemez
Mountains salamander remains
unknown. However, because in
formation in our files indicates that Bd
can be highly infectious and lethal in
other species of amphibians, we believe
there is substantial information that the
petitioned action may be warranted due
to the threat of disease.
The petitioner provides no
information addressing predation.
Cummer (2005, p. 30) speculated that
predation could increase subsequent to
stand-replacing wildfire because of lack
of sufficient cover objects while
salamanders are surface active;
however, we are not aware of any
information to support this.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
Because of the presence of Bd in the
Jemez Mountains salamander’s range
and the deleterious effect of Bd on other
species of amphibians, we believe the
threat of disease to the Jemez Mountains
salamander may be substantial. On the
other hand, neither the information in
our files nor that presented by the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:32 Aug 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
petitioner is substantial to suggest that
predation on the salamander is a
significant threat to the species. In
summary, we have information in our
files indicating that the petitioned
action may be warranted due to disease,
but not due to predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that the
salamander is threatened by inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms. The
petitioner states that the regulatory
mechanisms in place—the 2000
Conservation Agreement, the
Management Plan, the Forest Plan and
its amendments, and State law—are
ineffective and unenforceable. The
Management Plan was prepared by
NMEST biologists ‘‘to provide guidance
for the conservation and management of
sufficient habitat to maintain viable
populations of the species’’ (NMEST
2000, p. i.). Known and potential threats
to the species were identified and
detailed; management areas based on
habitat zones were identified; potential
management actions in salamander
habitat and their potential impacts were
identified; and guidelines were set forth
pertaining to certain management
actions relative to habitat categories
(NMEST 2000, pp. 4–22). The intent of
the Conservation Agreement, the
Management Plan, and amendment of
the Forest Plan was to protect the Jemez
Mountains salamander and its habitat
on lands administered by the Forest
Service. However, the petitioner
identifies multiple projects, both on and
off Forest Service lands, that were
counter to guidelines set forth in the
Management Plan and
recommendations by the NMEST
(WildEarth Guardians 2008, pp. 28–54).
The petitioner provides examples of
projects that they claim demonstrate the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms and ongoing threats to the
Jemez Mountains salamander and its
habitat. Examples provided by the
petitioner include actions following the
1996 Dome Fire, the 2000 Cerro Grande
Fire, and the 2003 BMG/Lakes Fires;
actions relative to the Valles II project
(forest thinning and fuel reduction
activities in areas adjacent to residential
development); the Highway 126 project;
dams at Los Alamos National
Laboratory; and the El Cajete mine
extension (WildEarth Guardians 2008,
pp. 28–54). Our files support the claim
that the Cooperative Agreement,
Management Plan, and Federal or State
laws have been ineffective at preventing
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
actions that may threaten the
salamander and its habitat.
The petitioner acknowledges that
because the Jemez Mountains
salamander was uplisted in New Mexico
in 2005 from State threatened to
endangered (NMDGF 2005, p. 2), it
gained the protection of the Wildlife
Conservation Act. The Wildlife
Conservation Act prohibits direct take of
the species except under issuance of a
scientific collecting permit. However,
this law only conveys protection from
collection or intentional harm; no New
Mexico State statutes address habitat
protection, indirect effects, or other
threats to the species identified by the
State as endangered. NMDGF has the
authority to consider and recommend
actions to mitigate potential adverse
effects to the salamander during its
review of development proposals. The
petitioner pointed out that the New
Mexico State Game Commission, a part
of the NMDGF, received financial
reimbursement and provided easements
for construction of the Highway 126
project (New Mexico Game
Commission, 2006, p. 13). We could not
find that any measures were
incorporated to limit impacts to the
salamander or its habitat (New Mexico
Game Commission, 2006, pp. 12–13).
Information in our files indicates that
the Highway 126 project directly
impacted salamanders and destroyed
habitat.
Additionally, the petitioner asserts
that threats to the species are not
addressed on lands where the
salamander occurs outside of the Santa
Fe National Forest. Populations of
salamanders have been observed on
Tribal lands, Los Alamos National
Laboratory lands, the Valles Caldera
National Preserve, and private lands.
Information in our files demonstrates
that outside of State protection from
collection and intentional harm, there
are no State or Federal regulations
providing specific protections for the
salamander or its habitat beyond those
populations within the Santa Fe
National Forest.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
The information provided by the
petitioner was found reliable and was
corroborated by information in our files.
Consequently, we find that the petition
contains substantial information that
listing the salamander due to the
inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms may be warranted.
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Proposed Rules
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors
Affecting the Species’ Continued
Existence
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that fire
suppression, chemical use, and climate
change threaten the salamander. Fire
suppression is addressed under Factor
A. Chemical use in salamander habitat
includes fire suppression retardant and
insecticides to prevent tree loss.
Although information in our files
indicates that fire retardant has been
used in salamander habitat, it is
unknown how much salamander habitat
has been affected. Prior to 2006 (71 FR
42798, July 28, 2006) fire retardant used
by the Forest Service contained sodium
ferrocyanide, which is highly toxic to
fish and amphibians (Pilliod et al. 2003,
p. 175). Because the salamander
breathes and carries out physiological
functions through its skin, chemicals
that are toxic to fish and other
amphibians may have had negative
effects to the salamander. It is unclear
whether the chemicals used in current
fire retardants or insecticides affect the
salamander. Thus, the information
provided by the petition and in our files
is not substantial to indicate adverse
effects of fire retardant or insecticides
on the salamander or its habitat.
The petitioner asserts that climate
change is likely an increasing threat to
the salamander due to overall habitat
drying and the species’ requirement of
moist microhabitats. In addition, the
petitioner states that warmer springs
and summers, earlier snowmelt, and
increased forest fire severity, frequency,
and duration will likely impact the
salamander. The petitioner provides
citations on climate change (Wildearth
Guardians 2008, p. 55) and references
Enquist and Gori (2008) to provide
information regarding climate change in
the Jemez Mountains. Enquist and Gori
(2008, p. iii) report the Jemez Mountains
as one of three areas in New Mexico that
may be most vulnerable to climate
change, in part, due to warmer-drier
conditions or greater vulnerability in
temperature and precipitation. The
petitioner contends that the identified
threats are exacerbated by the
salamander’s restricted distribution.
Evaluation of Information Provided in
the Petition and Available in Service
Files
In general, the information currently
available on the effects of climate
change does not make sufficiently
precise estimates of the location and
magnitude of the effects in order to
predict impacts to specific wildlife.
However, given a specific prediction in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:32 Aug 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
scientific literature of warmer and drier
conditions for the Jemez Mountains, and
that such change would likely have a
negative impact on the salamander,
which requires moist microclimates, we
find that the petitioned action may be
warranted due to climate change.
Regarding the potential threat of
chemical use, even though fire
retardants and insecticides are currently
being used, we did not find any
substantial information that chemical
use is actually affecting the salamander.
We will investigate this potential threat
further in our status review, and request
any additional information the public
may have on this potential threat.
We reviewed the petition and readily
available supporting information and
find that the petition presents
substantial information for this factor
under the threat of climate change, but
not under the threat of chemical use.
Finding
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires
that we make a finding on whether a
petition to list, delist, or reclassify a
species presents substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition,
supporting information submitted with
the petition, and information otherwise
available in our files. To the maximum
extent practicable, we are to make this
finding within 90 days of our receipt of
the petition and publish our notice of
the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our process for making this 90–day
finding under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act is limited to a determination of
whether the information in the petition
presents ‘‘substantial scientific and
commercial information,’’ which is
interpreted in our regulations as ‘‘that
amount of information that would lead
a reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may
be warranted’’ (50 CFR 424.14(b)). We
have reviewed the petition and the
literature cited in the petition, and
evaluated the information to determine
whether the sources cited support the
petitioned actions. We also reviewed
reliable information that was readily
available in our files to clarify and
verify information in the petition. Based
on our evaluation of the information
provided in the petition, we find that
the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that listing the Jemez
Mountains salamander may be
warranted. The petitioner presents
substantial information indicating that
the salamander may be threatened by
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
40137
Factor A (the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range),
Factor C (disease), Factor D (inadequacy
of existing regulatory mechanisms), and
Factor E (other natural or manmade
factors affecting its continued existence)
throughout the entire range of the Jemez
Mountains salamander. The petitioner
does not present substantial information
that Factor B (overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes) is currently, or in
the future may be, considered a threat
to the salamander.
Based on this review and evaluation,
we find that the petition has presented
substantial scientific or commercial
information that listing the salamander
throughout all or a portion of its range
may be warranted due to current and
future threats under Factors A, C, D, and
E. Therefore, we are initiating a status
review to determine whether listing the
Jemez Mountains salamander under the
Act is warranted. We will issue a 12–
month finding as to whether any of the
petitioned actions are warranted. To
ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting
scientific and commercial information
regarding the salamander.
The ‘‘substantial information’’
standard for a 90–day finding is in
contrast to the Act’s ‘‘best scientific and
commercial data’’ standard that applies
to a 12–month finding to determine
whether a petitioned action is
warranted. A 90–day finding is not a
status assessment of the species and
does not constitute a status review
under the Act. Our final determination
of whether a petitioned action is
warranted is not made until we have
completed a thorough status review of
the species, as part of the 12–month
finding on a petition, which is
conducted following a positive 90–day
finding. Because the Act’s standards for
90–day and 12–month findings are
different, as described above, a positive
90–day finding does not mean that the
12–month finding also will be positive.
We encourage interested parties to
continue gathering data that will assist
with the conservation and monitoring of
the salamander. The petitioner requests
that critical habitat be designated for
this species. If we determine in our 12–
month finding that listing the
salamander is warranted, we will
address the designation of critical
habitat at the time of the proposed
rulemaking.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this finding is available upon request
from the New Mexico Ecological
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
40138
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 153 / Tuesday, August 11, 2009 / Proposed Rules
Services Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary authors of this rule are
the staff members of the New Mexico
Ecological Services Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 31, 2009.
James J. Slack,
Acting Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. E9–19024 Filed 8–10– 09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 20
[FWS–R9–MB–2008–0124; 91200–1231–
9BPP–L2]
RIN 1018–AW31
Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed
Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations on
Certain Federal Indian Reservations
and Ceded Lands for the 2009–10
Season
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with PROPOSALS
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (hereinafter, Service or we)
proposes special migratory bird hunting
regulations for certain Tribes on Federal
Indian reservations, off-reservation trust
lands, and ceded lands for the 2009–10
migratory bird hunting season.
DATES: We will accept all comments on
the proposed regulations that are
postmarked or received in our office by
August 21, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on the proposals by one of the following
methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: 1018–
AW31, Division of Policy and Directives
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite
222, Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We
will post all comments on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us (see the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
18:32 Aug 10, 2009
Jkt 217001
Public Comments section below for
more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron
W. Kokel, Division of Migratory Bird
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, (703) 358–1714.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
April 10, 2009, Federal Register (74 FR
16339), we requested proposals from
Indian Tribes wishing to establish
special migratory bird hunting
regulations for the 2009–10 hunting
season, under the guidelines described
in the June 4, 1985, Federal Register (50
FR 23467). In this supplemental
proposed rule, we propose special
migratory bird hunting regulations for
29 Indian Tribes, based on the input we
received in response to the April 10,
2009, proposed rule. As described in
that proposed rule, the promulgation of
annual migratory bird hunting
regulations involves a series of
rulemaking actions each year. This
proposed rule is part of that series.
We developed the guidelines for
establishing special migratory bird
hunting regulations for Indian Tribes in
response to Tribal requests for
recognition of their reserved hunting
rights and, for some Tribes, recognition
of their authority to regulate hunting by
both Tribal and nontribal hunters on
their reservations. The guidelines
include possibilities for:
(1) On-reservation hunting by both
Tribal and nontribal hunters, with
hunting by nontribal hunters on some
reservations to take place within Federal
frameworks but on dates different from
those selected by the surrounding
State(s);
(2) On-reservation hunting by Tribal
members only, outside of the usual
Federal frameworks for season dates and
length, and for daily bag and possession
limits; and
(3) Off-reservation hunting by Tribal
members on ceded lands, outside of
usual framework dates and season
length, with some added flexibility in
daily bag and possession limits.
In all cases, the regulations
established under the guidelines must
be consistent with the March 10 to
September 1 closed season mandated by
the 1916 Convention between the
United States and Great Britain (for
Canada) for the Protection of Migratory
Birds (Treaty). The guidelines apply to
those Tribes having recognized reserved
hunting rights on Federal Indian
reservations (including off-reservation
trust lands) and on ceded lands. They
also apply to establishing migratory bird
hunting regulations for nontribal
hunters on all lands within the exterior
boundaries of reservations where Tribes
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
have full wildlife management authority
over such hunting or where the Tribes
and affected States otherwise have
reached agreement over hunting by
nontribal hunters on lands owned by
non-Indians within the reservation.
Tribes usually have the authority to
regulate migratory bird hunting by
nonmembers on Indian-owned
reservation lands, subject to Service
approval. The question of jurisdiction is
more complex on reservations that
include lands owned by non-Indians,
especially when the surrounding States
have established or intend to establish
regulations governing hunting by nonIndians on these lands. In such cases,
we encourage the Tribes and States to
reach agreement on regulations that
would apply throughout the
reservations. When appropriate, we will
consult with a Tribe and State with the
aim of facilitating an accord. We also
will consult jointly with Tribal and
State officials in the affected States
where Tribes wish to establish special
hunting regulations for Tribal members
on ceded lands. Because of past
questions regarding interpretation of
what events trigger the consultation
process, as well as who initiates it, we
provide the following clarification. We
routinely provide copies of Federal
Register publications pertaining to
migratory bird management to all State
Directors, Tribes, and other interested
parties. It is the responsibility of the
States, Tribes, and others to notify us of
any concern regarding any feature(s) of
any regulations. When we receive such
notification, we will initiate
consultation.
Our guidelines provide for the
continued harvest of waterfowl and
other migratory game birds by Tribal
members on reservations where such
harvest has been a customary practice.
We do not oppose this harvest, provided
it does not take place during the closed
season defined by the Treaty, and does
not adversely affect the status of the
migratory bird resource. Before
developing the guidelines, we reviewed
available information on the current
status of migratory bird populations,
reviewed the current status of migratory
bird hunting on Federal Indian
reservations, and evaluated the potential
impact of such guidelines on migratory
birds. We concluded that the impact of
migratory bird harvest by Tribal
members hunting on their reservations
is minimal.
One area of interest in Indian
migratory bird hunting regulations
relates to hunting seasons for nontribal
hunters on dates that are within Federal
frameworks, but which are different
from those established by the State(s)
E:\FR\FM\11AUP1.SGM
11AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 11, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40132-40138]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19024]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2009-0041] [MO-922105 0083-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition To List the Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon
neomexicanus) as Threatened or Endangered With Critical Habitat
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding and initiation of a status
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the Jemez Mountains salamander
(Plethodon neomexicanus) (salamander) as threatened or endangered and
designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. Following a review of the petition, we find that the petition
provides substantial scientific or commercial information indicating
that listing the Jemez Mountains salamander may be warranted.
Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a
status review of the species to determine if the petitioned action is
warranted. To ensure that the status review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting scientific and commercial data and other information
regarding this species. At the conclusion of this review, we will issue
a 12-month finding to determine if the petitioned action is warranted.
We will make a determination on critical habitat for this species if we
initiate a listing action.
DATES: We made the finding announced in this document on August 11,
2009. To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request that
we receive information on or before October 13, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Search for docket FWS-R2-ES-2009-0041 and then
follow the instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R2-ES-2009-0041; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information received on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Information Solicited
section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wally ``J'' Murphy, Field Supervisor,
New Mexico Ecological Services Office, 2105 Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM
87113, by telephone (505-346-2525) or by facsimile (505-346-2542).
Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call
the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Solicited
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information indicating that listing a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To
ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best
available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting
information on the status of the Jemez Mountains salamander. We request
information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies,
Native American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any
other interested parties concerning the status of the salamander. We
are seeking information regarding:
(1) The historical and current status and distribution of the Jemez
Mountains salamander, its biology and ecology, and ongoing conservation
measures for the species and its habitat;
(2) The species' population size and population trend;
(3) Its taxonomy; and
(4) Information relevant to the factors that are the basis for
making a listing determination for a species under section 4(a) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), which are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the species' 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 and threats to the species or its habitat.
In this finding, we have identified gaps in the information
provided in the petition to help to focus the public on areas where we
would like relevant data submitted. If we determine that listing the
Jemez Mountains salamander is warranted, we intend to propose critical
habitat to the maximum extent prudent and determinable at the time we
propose to list the species. Therefore, with regard to areas within the
geographical range currently occupied by the salamander, we also
request data and information on what may constitute physical or
biological features essential to the conservation of the species, where
these features are currently found, and whether any of these features
may require special management considerations or protection. In
addition, we request data and information regarding whether there are
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species that are
essential to the conservation of the species. Please provide specific
comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat you think
we should propose for designation if the species is proposed for
listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of the Act.
We will base our 12-month finding on a review of the best
scientific and commercial information available, including all
information received during this public comment period. Please note
that submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration, without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
species is a threatened or endangered species must be made ``solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.'' Based
on the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition,
as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act.
You may submit your information concerning this finding by one of
the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot
[[Page 40133]]
guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will post all hardcopy
submissions on https://www.regulations.gov. Please include sufficient
information with your comments to allow us to verify any scientific or
commercial information you include.
Information and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding, will be available for
public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov, or by appointment,
during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
New Mexico Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of this
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial information within the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day petition finding is ``that
amount of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR
424.14(b)). If we find that the petition presented substantial
information, we are required to promptly commence a review of the
status of the species.
On October 15, 2008, we received a petition dated October 9, 2008,
from WildEarth Guardians requesting that the Jemez Mountains salamander
be listed as threatened or endangered under the Act, and critical
habitat be designated. The petition clearly identified itself as such,
and included the requisite identification information for the
petitioner, as required by 50 CFR 424.14(a). In a November 26, 2008,
letter to the petitioner, we responded that we had reviewed the
petition and determined that an emergency listing was not necessary. We
also stated that, to the maximum extent practicable, we would address
their petition within 90 days.
Previous Federal Actions
We initially considered the Jemez Mountains salamander for listing
under the Act in the early 1980s (GAO August 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 and/or increasing threats.
On May 30, 1991, the Service, the USDA Forest Service (Forest
Service), and the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) signed
a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) outlining actions to be taken to
protect the salamander and its habitat on Forest Service lands,
including the formation of a team of agency biologists to immediately
implement the MOA 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 MOA (59 FR 11469). 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
and/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 Lists 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 these species, and to clarify that the Service no longer
regarded these species 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 Forest Service, finalized a Cooperative
Management Plan for the salamander on lands administered by the Forest
Service (Management Plan), and the agencies signed an updated
Conservation Agreement that superseded the MOA. The stated purpose of
the Conservation Agreement and the 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 Management Plan was incorporated into
the Santa Fe National Forest Plan.
Species Information
The Jemez Mountains salamander is a member of the family of
lungless salamanders (Plethodontidae), the largest family of
salamanders. The salamander is uniformly dark brown above, with
occasional fine gold/brassy stippling dorsally (on the back and sides)
and is sooty gray ventrally (underside). The body form is slender and
elongate. The salamander possesses foot webbing and a reduced fifth
toe. The salamander was originally reported as Spelerpes multiplicatus
(=Eurycea multiplicata) in 1913 (Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 27);
however, it was described as a new and distinct species (Plethodon
neomexicanus) in 1950 (Stebbins and Riemer, pp. 73-80).
Two species of plethodontid salamanders occur in New Mexico: The
Jemez Mountains salamander and the Sacramento Mountains salamander
(Aneides hardii). Molecular studies on plethodontid salamanders in
North America indicate that western species of the genus Plethodon (the
woodland salamanders) may be more closely related to species of the
genus Aneides (the climbing salamanders) than to eastern species of
Plethodon (Larson et al., 1981, p. 419; Mahoney 2001, p. 174). The
relationship of the Jemez
[[Page 40134]]
Mountains salamander to other western plethodontids is not completely
understood, but the salamander is considered basal (the earliest
grouping that branches to larger groupings of relative relatedness)
(Mahoney 2001, p. 184). No subspecies of the salamander are recognized.
The Jemez Mountains salamander is strictly terrestrial, does not
possess lungs, and does not require standing surface water for any life
stage. Respiration occurs through the skin and requires a moist
microclimate for gas exchange. Reproduction in the wild remains
unobserved, but it is presumed that the salamander lays eggs in spaces
underground. Fully-formed salamanders hatch from the eggs. Based on
examination of 57 female salamanders, Williams (1978, p. 475) concluded
that females likely lay 7 or 8 eggs every other year, either in mid-
August or, more likely, the spring after mating occurs in late July and
August. Sexual maturity is reached at 3 to 4 years in females and 3
years in males (Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28).
The salamander occurs in the Jemez Mountains in northern New Mexico
in Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, and Sandoval Counties. The species
predominantly occurs in mixed-conifer forest at an elevation between
2,200 and 2,900 meters (7,220 and 9,510 feet), consisting mainly of
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), blue spruce (Picea pungens),
Engelman spruce (Picea engelmannii), white fir (Abies concolor), limber
pine (Pinus flexilis), and aspen (Populus tremuloides) (Degenhardt et
al. 1996, p. 28), but occasionally can be found in Ponderosa pine
(Pinus ponderosa) stands. The microhabitat is characterized by deep,
igneous, subsurface rock with high soil moisture (NMEST 2000, p. 2).
The salamander spends much of its life underground, and can be found at
the surface when conditions are warm and wet, which is typically July
through September, but the period may extend from May through October
depending on conditions. When surface-active, the species is usually
found under rocks, bark, logs, moss mats, or inside decomposing logs.
The species is restricted to the moist habitats of the Jemez Mountains.
A feeding habits study for the Jemez Mountains salamander was
conducted by NMDGF in 1992. Salamander prey items were diverse in size
and type; however, there were three categories of prey that were
recognized as more important than the remaining groups: ants, mites,
and beetles (Cummer 2005, p. 43). Cummer (2005, pp. 45-50) stated that
prey specialization on any particular species of invertebrate was
unlikely in the salamander; however, she did observe that selection of
food appeared to not be random.
Although the petitioner believes that the number of salamanders
likely exceeds 10,000, we are not aware of any current information from
which a population estimate can be made. The petitioner's population
estimate was derived from survey efforts conducted from 1967 through
2003; however, the petitioner acknowledges, and we agree, that these
surveys are potentially unreliable because salamander observations are
dependent on multiple factors, such as environmental conditions (e.g.,
temperature or moisture), detection probabilities, and time when the
observations were made. Because of these variables, it is difficult to
determine population size or trends. Based upon the information
presented in the petition and in our files, we believe that a
comprehensive assessment of all of the survey and population
information is needed.
Five-Factor Evaluation
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and implementing regulations
at 50 CFR 424, set forth the procedures for adding species to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A
species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due
to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding threats to the salamander, as presented in the petition and
other information available in our files, is substantial, thereby
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation
of this information is presented below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Species' Habitat or Range
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that the Jemez Mountains salamander or its
habitat is threatened by the following conditions or actions: habitat
loss and fragmentation, climate change, stand-replacing fires, fire
suppression and rehabilitation, salvage logging, slash removal, forest
thinning treatment projects, use and construction of roads and dams,
chemical use, trail construction, and mining. We will address climate
change and chemical use under Factor E.
The petitioner contends that the main threat and cause of Jemez
Mountains salamander habitat loss is extensive, stand-replacing fires
(severe fires in which most mature trees are destroyed). The petitioner
reports on land area burned during the Dome (1996), Cerro Grande
(2000), and BMG/Lakes (2002) wildfires. Information in our files
indicates that these stand-replacing fires overlapped with salamander
habitat; however the petition did not contain, nor we do have, a
complete analysis of the extent or degree of salamander habitat that
burned. The NMEST (2000, p. 9) stated that, ``the greatest threat to
this species is thought to be the potential for extensive stand-
replacing fires.'' The petitioner contends that there were negative
effects to the salamander and its habitat from the Cerro Grande Fire,
such as removal of canopy cover and increased soil temperatures
(WildEarth Guardians 2008, pp. 23-24). Cummer and Painter (2007, p. 26)
reported significant changes in microhabitat temperatures following the
Cerro Grande Fire. The petitioner asserts that impacts on the
salamander and its habitat from other stand-replacing wildfires (e.g.
Dome Fire, BMG/Lakes Fires) was likely the same as effects from the
Cerro Grande fire. We agree; however, we are not aware of an analysis
that estimates the amount of salamander habitat affected by other
wildfires. Finally, our files indicate that future stand-replacing
wildfires in salamander habitat remain a threat.
The petitioner also claims that the effects of fire suppression and
rehabilitation activities following wildfire threaten the Jemez
Mountains salamander. For example, the petitioner indicates that,
during the Cerro Grande Fire, suppression activities included the
construction of 26 kilometers (km) (16 miles (mi)) of hand line (hand-
dug trenches 1.5 to 3 meters (m) (5 to 10 feet (ft)) wide from which
all combustible material was removed), 63 km (39 mi) of bulldozer line
(larger fire breaks with vegetation removed by bulldozing), and safety
zones; release of 514,000 liters (135,800 gallons) of fire retardant;
and 53 km (32 mi) of road improvement resulting in vegetation removal
within 30 m (100 ft) of either side of the roads (WildEarth Guardians
2008, p. 26). However, while information in our files
[[Page 40135]]
indicates that some of these activities occurred in salamander habitat
and corroborate some of the claims of the petitioner on fire
suppression and rehabilitation, the petitioner does not provide, nor
are we aware of, a complete assessment of the extent of these
activities in salamander habitat. Please note that chemical use
resulting from fire suppression activities is addressed separately in
Factor E.
The petitioner describes how historical grazing and fire
suppression have contributed to changes in forest structure and
composition in the Jemez Mountains. Scientific literature (e.g., Allen
1989; Touchan et al. 1996) supports this conclusion; however, we are
not aware of an assessment of how such changes may affect the
salamander or its habitat.
The petitioner believes that salvage logging after wildfire and
associated thinning with removal of snags and slash in Jemez Mountains
salamander habitat has had negative impacts to salamanders and their
habitat. Logging can interrupt the development of salamander habitat by
removing the requisite habitat components of canopy cover and dead and
downed logs, while increasing temperature, erosion, runoff, and soil
compaction (NMEST 2000, p. 5). Additionally, if these activities occur
when salamanders are surface active, salvage logging could result in
direct injury or mortality to individuals. The petitioner identifies
that salvage logging and forest thinning have been proposed within
salamander habitat, but we have no estimate on the amount of salamander
habitat that has been impacted by these activities. Nevertheless, we
found substantial information indicating that the Forest Service has
conducted, and will likely continue to conduct, salvage logging in
salamander habitat.
The petitioner asserts that habitat alteration due to road and
trail building in salamander habitat has deleterious effects to the
Jemez Mountains salamander and its habitat. The petitioner believes
that construction of roads and trails fragments habitat, and high
vehicular traffic or heavy equipment could cause excessive vibration
resulting in settling of the subsurface rock and elimination of the
underground spaces, presumed necessary as subterranean habitat. The
petitioner provides information on the length of roads that were re-
opened during and subsequent to wildfire. These roads likely affected
the salamander and its habitat through vegetation removal, soil
compaction, and the elimination of subsurface spaces. 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). Moreover, 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). Although
the petitioner does not quantify the amount of salamander habitat
impacted by roads, information in our files supports the claim that
roads may have led, and may continue to contribute in the future, to
the degradation of salamander habitat.
The petitioner asserts that the improvement and realignment of New
Mexico State Highway 126 (also called Forest Highway 12) has
threatened, and will continue to threaten, the Jemez Mountains
salamander. Information concerning the project provided by the
petitioner was found to be reliable. For example, our files indicate
that portions of the Highway 126 project resulted in the removal of
salamander habitat as well as the destruction of individual salamanders
and fragmentation of a relatively isolated population of salamanders.
The petitioner also notes that construction and maintenance of log
skidder trails, while not likely to be as destructive as road
construction and maintenance, still has similar effects on the Jemez
Mountains salamander. The petitioner believes that trail construction
and salvage logging operations are a threat to the salamander. The
petitioner correctly indicates that approximately 4 km (2.5 mi) of
trail were constructed by bulldozer in occupied salamander habitat.
The petitioner asserts that one of the common techniques used to
survey for the presence or absence of the salamander destroys habitat
because it involves destructive sampling by rearranging cover objects
such as rocks and logs as well as tearing apart decayed logs. We have
no information regarding the effects to salamander habitat from survey
techniques (NMEST 2000, pp. 27-36); however, we will examine this claim
more closely in our status review, and we request any additional
information the public may have on this potential threat.
The petitioner asserts that the construction of dams and mining
modify Jemez Mountains salamander habitat. Information in our files
supports the claim that dams or water retention structures may have
been constructed in salamander habitat. Specifically, the petitioner
contends that an extension of the El Cajete Mine in the Jemez Mountains
affects the salamander. Our files indicate that the Forest Service
determined that the mine would not impact the salamander because the
project was not located on northerly or moist slopes greater than 35 to
40 percent that support mature or old growth mixed conifer (Forest
Service 1995a, pp. 12-13; Forest Service 1995b, p. 2). At the time of
the project, steep slopes (greater than 30 percent) were thought to be
a critical element of salamander habitat (Ramotnik 1988, p. 50).
However, salamanders have been documented in areas of no significant
slope (less than 5 percent) (NMDGF 2000, p. 8), and steep slopes are no
longer considered a requirement of occupied habitat. Based on this more
recent information, this project may have affected the salamander and
its habitat, and there is potential for future mining activities to
affect the salamander and its habitat. We find that the petition and
information in our files indicate that construction of dams and future
mining activities may result in adverse modifications to salamander
habitat.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The petitioner provides substantial and reliable information that
the salamander and its habitat may be threatened from stand-replacing
fires; salvage logging; fire suppression; construction, maintenance,
and use of roads and trails; construction of dams; and mining
activities. The information presented in the petition is supported by
information in our files, and presents substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due to the
present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the
habitat or range of the salamander.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that the salamander is threatened by loss of
individuals through collection of specimens and surveying. The petition
cites a report by the NMEST (2000) that summarizes the history of
collection of the species. According to the petition, 977 Jemez
Mountains salamanders were collected for scientific purposes from 1910
to 1999. The petitioner cites the report (NMEST 2000) in concluding
that such collecting has likely reduced populations in localized areas.
The petitioner also cites the report (NMEST
[[Page 40136]]
2000) in asserting that a 2 person-hour survey protocol was developed
to search for Jemez Mountains salamanders. Following this protocol,
likely cover objects (rocks, bark, and decayed logs) are searched for
salamanders (NMEST 2000). The petition cites a NMDGF (2000) report in
claiming that this technique can destroy habitat and that continual
searches in the same habitat have been shown to result in a decrease in
salamander populations.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
We find that the petition presents substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due to
overutilization for scientific purposes.
C. Disease or Predation
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner states that disease is affecting the salamander.
Information in our files indicates that the amphibian pathogenic
fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), was found in one
salamander in 2003 (Cummer et al. 2005, p. 248). The individual
salamander was collected and sent to the U.S. Geological Survey
National Wildlife Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin, for diagnostic
analysis. Results from the analysis included a dual infection of Bd and
a bacterial species (Cladosporium spp). The virulence of Bd relative to
the Jemez Mountains salamander remains unknown. However, because in
formation in our files indicates that Bd can be highly infectious and
lethal in other species of amphibians, we believe there is substantial
information that the petitioned action may be warranted due to the
threat of disease.
The petitioner provides no information addressing predation. Cummer
(2005, p. 30) speculated that predation could increase subsequent to
stand-replacing wildfire because of lack of sufficient cover objects
while salamanders are surface active; however, we are not aware of any
information to support this.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Because of the presence of Bd in the Jemez Mountains salamander's
range and the deleterious effect of Bd on other species of amphibians,
we believe the threat of disease to the Jemez Mountains salamander may
be substantial. On the other hand, neither the information in our files
nor that presented by the petitioner is substantial to suggest that
predation on the salamander is a significant threat to the species. In
summary, we have information in our files indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted due to disease, but not due to
predation.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that the salamander is threatened by
inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. The petitioner states
that the regulatory mechanisms in place--the 2000 Conservation
Agreement, the Management Plan, the Forest Plan and its amendments, and
State law--are ineffective and unenforceable. The Management Plan was
prepared by NMEST biologists ``to provide guidance for the conservation
and management of sufficient habitat to maintain viable populations of
the species'' (NMEST 2000, p. i.). Known and potential threats to the
species were identified and detailed; management areas based on habitat
zones were identified; potential management actions in salamander
habitat and their potential impacts were identified; and guidelines
were set forth pertaining to certain management actions relative to
habitat categories (NMEST 2000, pp. 4-22). The intent of the
Conservation Agreement, the Management Plan, and amendment of the
Forest Plan was to protect the Jemez Mountains salamander and its
habitat on lands administered by the Forest Service. However, the
petitioner identifies multiple projects, both on and off Forest Service
lands, that were counter to guidelines set forth in the Management Plan
and recommendations by the NMEST (WildEarth Guardians 2008, pp. 28-54).
The petitioner provides examples of projects that they claim
demonstrate the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms and
ongoing threats to the Jemez Mountains salamander and its habitat.
Examples provided by the petitioner include actions following the 1996
Dome Fire, the 2000 Cerro Grande Fire, and the 2003 BMG/Lakes Fires;
actions relative to the Valles II project (forest thinning and fuel
reduction activities in areas adjacent to residential development); the
Highway 126 project; dams at Los Alamos National Laboratory; and the El
Cajete mine extension (WildEarth Guardians 2008, pp. 28-54). Our files
support the claim that the Cooperative Agreement, Management Plan, and
Federal or State laws have been ineffective at preventing actions that
may threaten the salamander and its habitat.
The petitioner acknowledges that because the Jemez Mountains
salamander was uplisted in New Mexico in 2005 from State threatened to
endangered (NMDGF 2005, p. 2), it gained the protection of the Wildlife
Conservation Act. The Wildlife Conservation Act prohibits direct take
of the species except under issuance of a scientific collecting permit.
However, this law only conveys protection from collection or
intentional harm; no New Mexico State statutes address habitat
protection, indirect effects, or other threats to the species
identified by the State as endangered. NMDGF has the authority to
consider and recommend actions to mitigate potential adverse effects to
the salamander during its review of development proposals. The
petitioner pointed out that the New Mexico State Game Commission, a
part of the NMDGF, received financial reimbursement and provided
easements for construction of the Highway 126 project (New Mexico Game
Commission, 2006, p. 13). We could not find that any measures were
incorporated to limit impacts to the salamander or its habitat (New
Mexico Game Commission, 2006, pp. 12-13). Information in our files
indicates that the Highway 126 project directly impacted salamanders
and destroyed habitat.
Additionally, the petitioner asserts that threats to the species
are not addressed on lands where the salamander occurs outside of the
Santa Fe National Forest. Populations of salamanders have been observed
on Tribal lands, Los Alamos National Laboratory lands, the Valles
Caldera National Preserve, and private lands. Information in our files
demonstrates that outside of State protection from collection and
intentional harm, there are no State or Federal regulations providing
specific protections for the salamander or its habitat beyond those
populations within the Santa Fe National Forest.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
The information provided by the petitioner was found reliable and
was corroborated by information in our files. Consequently, we find
that the petition contains substantial information that listing the
salamander due to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms may
be warranted.
[[Page 40137]]
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioner asserts that fire suppression, chemical use, and
climate change threaten the salamander. Fire suppression is addressed
under Factor A. Chemical use in salamander habitat includes fire
suppression retardant and insecticides to prevent tree loss. Although
information in our files indicates that fire retardant has been used in
salamander habitat, it is unknown how much salamander habitat has been
affected. Prior to 2006 (71 FR 42798, July 28, 2006) fire retardant
used by the Forest Service contained sodium ferrocyanide, which is
highly toxic to fish and amphibians (Pilliod et al. 2003, p. 175).
Because the salamander breathes and carries out physiological functions
through its skin, chemicals that are toxic to fish and other amphibians
may have had negative effects to the salamander. It is unclear whether
the chemicals used in current fire retardants or insecticides affect
the salamander. Thus, the information provided by the petition and in
our files is not substantial to indicate adverse effects of fire
retardant or insecticides on the salamander or its habitat.
The petitioner asserts that climate change is likely an increasing
threat to the salamander due to overall habitat drying and the species'
requirement of moist microhabitats. In addition, the petitioner states
that warmer springs and summers, earlier snowmelt, and increased forest
fire severity, frequency, and duration will likely impact the
salamander. The petitioner provides citations on climate change
(Wildearth Guardians 2008, p. 55) and references Enquist and Gori
(2008) to provide information regarding climate change in the Jemez
Mountains. Enquist and Gori (2008, p. iii) report the Jemez Mountains
as one of three areas in New Mexico that may be most vulnerable to
climate change, in part, due to warmer-drier conditions or greater
vulnerability in temperature and precipitation. The petitioner contends
that the identified threats are exacerbated by the salamander's
restricted distribution.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
In general, the information currently available on the effects of
climate change does not make sufficiently precise estimates of the
location and magnitude of the effects in order to predict impacts to
specific wildlife. However, given a specific prediction in scientific
literature of warmer and drier conditions for the Jemez Mountains, and
that such change would likely have a negative impact on the salamander,
which requires moist microclimates, we find that the petitioned action
may be warranted due to climate change.
Regarding the potential threat of chemical use, even though fire
retardants and insecticides are currently being used, we did not find
any substantial information that chemical use is actually affecting the
salamander. We will investigate this potential threat further in our
status review, and request any additional information the public may
have on this potential threat.
We reviewed the petition and readily available supporting
information and find that the petition presents substantial information
for this factor under the threat of climate change, but not under the
threat of chemical use.
Finding
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information provided in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise available in our files. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are to make this finding within 90
days of our receipt of the petition and publish our notice of the
finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our process for making this 90-day finding under section 4(b)(3)(A)
of the Act is limited to a determination of whether the information in
the petition presents ``substantial scientific and commercial
information,'' which is interpreted in our regulations as ``that amount
of information that would lead a reasonable person to believe that the
measure proposed in the petition may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)).
We have reviewed the petition and the literature cited in the petition,
and evaluated the information to determine whether the sources cited
support the petitioned actions. We also reviewed reliable information
that was readily available in our files to clarify and verify
information in the petition. Based on our evaluation of the information
provided in the petition, we find that the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that
listing the Jemez Mountains salamander may be warranted. The petitioner
presents substantial information indicating that the salamander may be
threatened by Factor A (the present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range), Factor C
(disease), Factor D (inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms), and
Factor E (other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence) throughout the entire range of the Jemez Mountains
salamander. The petitioner does not present substantial information
that Factor B (overutilization for commercial, recreational,
scientific, or educational purposes) is currently, or in the future may
be, considered a threat to the salamander.
Based on this review and evaluation, we find that the petition has
presented substantial scientific or commercial information that listing
the salamander throughout all or a portion of its range may be
warranted due to current and future threats under Factors A, C, D, and
E. Therefore, we are initiating a status review to determine whether
listing the Jemez Mountains salamander under the Act is warranted. We
will issue a 12-month finding as to whether any of the petitioned
actions are warranted. To ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information
regarding the salamander.
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding is in
contrast to the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard
that applies to a 12-month finding to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding is not a status assessment of the
species and does not constitute a status review under the Act. Our
final determination of whether a petitioned action is warranted is not
made until we have completed a thorough status review of the species,
as part of the 12-month finding on a petition, which is conducted
following a positive 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for
90-day and 12-month findings are different, as described above, a
positive 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding also
will be positive.
We encourage interested parties to continue gathering data that
will assist with the conservation and monitoring of the salamander. The
petitioner requests that critical habitat be designated for this
species. If we determine in our 12-month finding that listing the
salamander is warranted, we will address the designation of critical
habitat at the time of the proposed rulemaking.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this finding is
available upon request from the New Mexico Ecological
[[Page 40138]]
Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary authors of this rule are the staff members of the New
Mexico Ecological Services Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: July 31, 2009.
James J. Slack,
Acting Deputy Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. E9-19024 Filed 8-10- 09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S