Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus, 54822-54845 [2010-22455]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 174 (Thursday, September 9, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54822-54845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22455]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2009-0041]
[MO 92210-0-008]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To List the Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon 
neomexicanus) as Endangered or Threatened With Critical Habitat

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list the Jemez Mountains salamander 
(Plethodon neomexicanus) as an endangered or threatened species and to 
designate critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act). After review of all available scientific and commercial 
information, we find that listing the Jemez Mountains salamander as 
endangered or threatened throughout its range is warranted. Currently, 
however, listing the Jemez Mountains salamander is precluded by higher 
priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month petition 
finding, we will add the Jemez Mountains salamander to our candidate 
species list. We will develop a proposed rule to list the Jemez 
Mountains salamander as our priorities allow. We will make any 
determination on critical habitat during development of the proposed 
rule. In the interim period, we will address the status of the 
candidate taxon through our annual Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR).

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on September 9, 
2010.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R2-ES-2009-0041. Supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours by contacting 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services 
Office, 2105 Osuna NE, Albuquerque, NM 87113. Please submit any new 
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding 
to the above address.

[[Page 54823]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wally Murphy, Field Supervisor, New 
Mexico Ecological Services Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at 505-
346-2525; or by facsimile at 505-346-2542. If you use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal 
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires 
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Threatened and 
Endangered Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or 
commercial information indicating that listing the species may be 
warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of 
the petition. In this finding we determine that the petitioned action 
is: (a) Not warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate 
proposal of a regulation implementing the petitioned action is 
precluded by other pending proposals to determine whether species are 
endangered or threatened, and expeditious progress is being made to add 
or remove qualified species from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be 
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such 
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12 
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal 
Register.

Previous Federal Actions

    We initially considered the Jemez Mountains salamander (Plethodon 
neomexicanus) for listing under the Act in the early 1980s (General 
Accounting Office 1993, p. 30). In December 1982, we published a notice 
of review classifying the salamander as a Category 2 species (47 FR 
58454, December 30, 1982). Category 2 status included those taxa for 
which information in the Service's possession indicated that a proposed 
listing rule was possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data on 
biological vulnerability and threats were not available to support a 
proposed rule.
    On February 21, 1990, we received a petition to list the salamander 
as threatened. Subsequently, we published a positive 90-day finding, 
indicating that the petition contained sufficient information to 
suggest that listing may be warranted (55 FR 38342; September 18, 
1990). In the Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) published on November 
21, 1991, we announced the salamander as a Category 1 species with a 
``declining'' status (56 FR 58814). Category 1 status included those 
species for which the Service had on file substantial information 
regarding the species' biological vulnerability and threat(s) to 
support proposals to list them as endangered or threatened species. The 
``declining'' status indicated decreasing numbers, increasing threats, 
or both.
    On May 30, 1991, the Service, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and 
the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMDGF) signed a Memorandum 
of Agreement outlining actions to be taken to protect the salamander 
and its habitat on the Santa Fe National Forest lands, including the 
formation of a team of agency biologists to immediately implement the 
Memorandum of Agreement and to develop a management plan for the 
species. The management plan was to be incorporated into the Santa Fe 
National Forest Plan. On April 3, 1992, we published a 12-month finding 
that listing the salamander was not warranted because of the 
conservation measures and commitments within the Memorandum of 
Agreement (57 FR 11459). In the November 15, 1994, CNOR, we included 
the salamander as a Category 2 species, with a trend status of 
``improving'' (59 FR 58982). A status of ``improving'' indicated those 
species known to be increasing in numbers or whose threats to their 
continued existence were lessening in the wild.
    In the CNOR published on February 28, 1996, we announced a revised 
list of animal and plant taxa that were regarded as candidates for 
possible addition to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and 
Plants (61 FR 7596). The revised candidate list included only former 
Category 1 species. All former Category 2 species were dropped from the 
list in order to reduce confusion about the conservation status of 
those species, and to clarify that the Service no longer regarded them 
as candidates for listing. Because the salamander was a Category 2 
species, it was no longer recognized as a candidate species as of the 
February 28, 1996, CNOR.
    In January 2000, the New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team (NMEST), a 
group of interagency biologists representing NMDGF, the Service, the 
U.S. Geological Survey, and the Santa Fe National Forest, finalized a 
Cooperative Management Plan for the salamander on lands administered by 
the Santa Fe National Forest (Cooperative Management Plan), and the 
agencies signed an updated Conservation Agreement that superseded the 
Memorandum of Agreement. The stated purpose of the Conservation 
Agreement and the Cooperative Management Plan was to provide for the 
long-term conservation of salamanders by reducing or removing threats 
to the species and by proactively managing their habitat (NMEST 2000 
Conservation Agreement, p. 1). In a Decision Notice and Finding of No 
Significant Impact for the Forest Plan Amendment for Managing Special 
Status Species Habitat, signed on December 8, 2004, the Cooperative 
Management Plan was incorporated into the Santa Fe National Forest 
Plan.
    On October 15, 2008, we received a petition dated October 9, 2008, 
from WildEarth Guardians requesting that we list the Jemez Mountains 
salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus) (salamander) as endangered or 
threatened under the Act, and designate critical habitat. On August 11, 
2009, we published a 90-day finding that the petition presented 
substantial information that listing the salamander may be warranted 
and that initiated a status review of the species (74 FR 40132). On 
December 30, 2009, WildEarth Guardians filed suit against the Service 
for failure to issue a 12-month finding on the petition (WildEarth 
Guardians v. Salazar, No. 09-1212 (D.N.M.)). Under a stipulated 
settlement agreement, the 12-month finding is due to the Federal 
Register by September 8, 2010. This notice constitutes our 12-month 
finding for the petition to list the Jemez Mountains salamander as 
endangered or threatened.

Species Information

    The salamander is uniformly dark brown above, with occasional fine 
gold to brassy coloring with stippling dorsally (on the back and sides) 
and is sooty gray ventrally (underside). The salamander is slender and 
elongate, and it possesses foot webbing and a reduced fifth toe. This 
salamander is strictly terrestrial and is a member of the family 
Plethodontidae. The salamander does not use standing surface water for 
any life stage. Respiration occurs through the skin, which requires a 
moist microclimate for gas exchange.
Taxonomy and Species Description
    The salamander was originally reported as Spelerpes multiplicatus 
(=Eurycea multiplicata) in 1913 (Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 27); 
however, it was described and recognized as a new and distinct species 
(Plethodon neomexicanus) in 1950 (Stebbins and Riemer, pp. 73-80). No 
subspecies are recognized.

[[Page 54824]]

    It is a member of the Plethodontidae family. Two species of 
plethodontid salamanders are endemic (native and restricted to a 
particular region) to New Mexico: the Jemez Mountains salamander and 
the Sacramento Mountains salamander (Aneides hardii). Unlike all other 
North American plethodontid salamanders, these two species are 
geographically isolated from all other species of Plethodon and 
Aneides.
Distribution
    The distribution of plethodontid salamanders in North America has 
been highly influenced by past changes in climate and associated 
Pleistocene glacial cycles. In the Jemez Mountains, the lack of glacial 
landforms indicates that alpine glaciers did not develop here, but the 
abundance of evidence from exposed rock surfaces that have been quickly 
broken up by frost action may reflect near-glacial conditions during 
the Wisconsin Glacial Episode (Allen 1989, p. 11). Conservatively, the 
salamander has likely occupied the Jemez Mountains for at least 10,000 
years, but this could be as long as 1.2 million years, colonizing the 
area subsequent to volcanic eruption.
    The salamander is restricted to the Jemez Mountains in northern New 
Mexico, in Los Alamos, Rio Arriba, and Sandoval Counties, around the 
rim of the collapsed caldera (large volcanic crater), with some 
occurrences on topographic features (e.g., resurgent domes) on the 
interior of the caldera. The majority of salamander habitat is located 
on federally managed lands including USFS, Valles Caldera National 
Preserve (VCNP), National Park Service (Bandelier National Monument), 
and Los Alamos National Laboratory, with some habitat located on tribal 
land and private lands (NMEST 2000, p. 1). The species predominantly 
occurs at an elevation between 2,200 and 2,900 meters (m) (7,200 and 
9,500 feet (ft)) (Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28), but has been found as 
low as 2,133 m (6,998 ft) (Ramotnik 1988, p. 78) and as high as 3,350 m 
(10,990 ft) (Ramotnik 1988, p. 84).
    We divided known salamander distributional data into 5 units (Unit 
1-Western; Unit 2-Northern; Unit 3-East-South-Eastern; Unit 4-Southern; 
and Unit 5-Central) to provide clarity in describing and analyzing the 
potential threats that may differ across the species' range. We 
developed these units based on the best information available to us, 
but some of the unit boundaries are based on incomplete occupancy 
information. These units reflect where surveys have occurred and 
generally follow breaks in topography. For example, there are areas 
(e.g., VCNP) where few surveys have been conducted and occupancy may 
not be uniform. Because the salamander has been found to occupy a wide 
variety of sites, we do not know the extent of geographic or genetic 
connectivity between localities. The VCNP is located west of Los 
Alamos, New Mexico, and is owned by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
(part of the National Forest System), but run by a nine-member Board of 
Trustees: the Supervisor of Bandelier National Monument, the Supervisor 
of the Santa Fe National Forest, and seven other members with distinct 
areas of experience or activity appointed by the President of the 
United States (Valles Caldera Trust 2005, pp. 1-11). Prior to Federal 
ownership in 2000, the VCNP was privately held.
Habitat
    The terrestrial salamander predominantly inhabits mixed conifer 
forest, consisting primarily of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), 
blue spruce (Picea pungens), Engelman spruce (P. engelmannii), white 
fir (Abies concolor), limber pine (Pinus flexilis), Ponderosa pine (P. 
ponderosa), Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum), and aspen (Populus 
tremuloides) (Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28; Reagan 1967, p. 17). The 
species can also be found in stands of pure Ponderosa pine and in 
spruce-fir and aspen stands, but these forest types have not been 
adequately surveyed. Predominant understory includes Rocky Mountain 
maple (Acer glabrum), New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana), 
oceanspray (Holodiscus sp.), and various shrubby oaks (Quercus spp.) 
(Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28; Reagan 1967, p. 17). Salamanders are 
generally found in association with decaying coniferous logs, and in 
areas with abundant white fir, Ponderosa pine, and Douglas fir as the 
predominant tree species (Ramotnik 1988, p. 17; Reagan 1967, pp. 16-
17). Salamanders use decaying coniferous logs considerably more often 
than deciduous, likely due to the physical features (e.g., blocky 
chunks with cracks and spaces) that form as coniferous logs decay 
(Ramotnik 1988, p. 53). Still, the species may be found beneath some 
deciduous logs and excessively decayed coniferous logs, because these 
can provide surface habitat and cover (Ramotnik 1988, p. 53).
Biology
    The salamander is strictly terrestrial and does not possess lungs. 
The salamander does not use standing surface water for any life stage. 
Respiration occurs through the skin, which requires a moist 
microclimate for gas exchange. The salamander spends much of its life 
underground; it can be found at the surface from July through 
September, when relative environmental conditions are warm and wet. 
When active at the surface, the species is usually found under decaying 
logs, rocks, bark, moss mats, or inside decomposing stumps. The 
salamander's underground habitat appears to be deep, fractured, sub-
surface rock in areas with high soil moisture (NMEST 2000, p. 2) where 
the geologic and moisture constraints likely limit the distribution of 
the species. Soil pH (acidity) may limit distribution as well. It is 
unknown whether the species forages or carries on any other activity 
below ground, although it is presumed that eggs are laid and hatch 
beneath the surface.
    The surface microhabitat temperature for 577 Jemez Mountains 
salamanders ranged from 6.0 to 17.0 degrees Celsius ([deg]C) (43 to 63 
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F)), with a mean of 12.7 [deg]C (54.9 [deg]F) 
(Williams 1972, p. 18). Significantly more salamanders were observed 
under logs where temperatures are closest to the mean temperature (12.5 
[deg]C (54.5 [deg]F)) than inside logs where temperatures deviated the 
most from the mean temperature (13.3 [deg]C (55.9 [deg]F)) (Williams 
1972, p. 19). Changes to microhabitat temperatures are discussed under 
Factors A and E, below.
    Sexual maturity is attained at 3 to 4 years in females and 3 years 
in males (Williams 1976, pp. 31, 35). Reproduction in the wild has not 
been observed; however, based on observed physiological changes, 
reproduction is believed to occur above ground between mid-July and 
mid-August (Williams 1976, pp. 31-36). Based on examination of 57 
female salamanders in the wild and one clutch of eggs laid in a 
laboratory setting, Williams (1978, p. 475) concluded that females 
likely lay 7 or 8 eggs every other year or every third year. Eggs are 
thought to be laid underground the spring after mating occurs (Williams 
1978, p. 475). Fully-formed salamanders hatch from the eggs. The 
lifespan of the salamander in the wild is unknown; however, based on 
reproductive information that indicates the species is not sexually 
mature until age 3 or 4 years and that it only lays eggs every 2 or 3 
years, and considering the estimated lifespan of other terrestrial 
plethodontid salamanders, we estimate that the species likely lives 
more than 10 years.
    Salamander prey from above ground foraging is diverse in size and 
type, with ants, mites, and beetles being most

[[Page 54825]]

important in the salamander's diet (Cummer 2005, p. 43). Cummer (2005, 
pp. 45-50) found that specialization on invertebrate species was 
unlikely, but there was likely a preferential selection of prey.
Overview of Survey Data
    Standardized survey protocols have been used for the salamander 
since 1987 (NMDGF 2000, p. 2), but the number and location of surveys 
have been variable and opportunistic. Survey methods involve searching 
under potential cover objects (e.g., logs, rocks, bark, moss mats) and 
inside decomposing coniferous logs when environmental conditions are 
likely best for detecting surface-active salamanders, generally May 
through September, when summer monsoon rains occur. Unfortunately, 
methods for determining locations to survey salamanders over the past 
20 years have not been systematic, and though we have conducted a 
comprehensive review, the data have not been consistently available to 
allow comparison of the status of the salamander over its entire range.
    Three survey protocols have been in use since 1987 (NMEST 2000b, 
pp. 27-29). Protocol A (presence or absence) has been used when 
attempting to determine whether an area is occupied (NMEST 2000b, p. 
27). Following this protocol, surveys cease after 2 ``person-hours'' of 
effort (e.g., one person searching for 2 hours or two people searching 
for 1 hour) or when the first salamander is observed, whichever comes 
first. Because the salamander utilizes underground habitat and an 
unknown number of individuals may be active at the surface, repeated 
surveys may be necessary to determine occupancy of a locality (NMEST 
2000b, p. 27).
    Protocol B (population levels and trends) has been used for 
comparing plots, monitoring trends through time, or evaluating how 
salamander localities fluctuate in response to environmental variables 
(NMEST 2000b, p. 28). For this protocol, a survey is conducted for 2 
person-hours, with all salamanders tallied.
    Protocol C (detailed environmental data) collects microhabitat data 
to characterize potential salamander habitat (NMEST 2000b, p. 28). This 
protocol involves collecting data on important habitat features within 
a 50 m (160 ft) by 2 m (6.6 ft) transect, in addition to surveying for 
salamanders under cover objects.
    The rangewide population size of the salamander is also unknown. 
Monitoring the absolute abundance of plethodontid salamanders is 
inherently difficult because of the natural variation associated with 
surface activity (Hyde and Simons 2001, p. 624), which ultimately 
affects the probability of detecting a salamander. The probability of 
detection varies over space and time and is highly dependent upon the 
environmental and biological parameters that drive surface activity 
(Hyde and Simons 2001, p. 624). Given the known bias of detection 
probabilities and the inconsistent survey effort across years, 
population size estimates using existing data cannot be made 
accurately.
    Despite our inability to assess the rangewide population of the 
salamander in a comprehensive manner, the survey data are useful to 
understand that persistence of the salamander in localities may vary 
across the range of the species. For example, some localities where the 
salamander was once considered abundant or common (e.g., many parts of 
Unit 2, the Type Locality or the location where the salamander was 
originally found (Unit 4), and VCNP-Old Beaver Pond (Unit 5)), either 
the salamander no longer persists, or it persists at very low numbers. 
Alternatively, there are also three localities (Redondo Border, VCNP 
(Unit 5), and North East Slope VCNP (northern part of Unit 3)) where 
the salamander continues to be relatively abundant compared to most 
currently occupied sites. However, the numbers in these relatively 
abundant areas are far less than historic reports for the type 
locality, where 659 individuals were captured in a single year (1970), 
394 of them in a single month (Williams 1976, p. 26). We know of no 
location where salamander abundance is similar to that observed in 
1970. Overall, a few localized areas appear to be stable; however, 
there appears to be a decreasing trend within areas (decrease in 
numbers of salamanders observed during surveys) and a possible 
rangewide declining trend (an increase in the number of areas where 
salamanders were once present and have not been observed in recent 
surveys). The apparent declining trend is evident in Units 1 and 3, 
where we have the best survey information. Because it appears that the 
species is relatively long-lived, has relatively low reproductive 
output, has limited dispersal ability, and a small home range, it is 
likely that the apparent decreasing and declining trends both within 
localized areas and across the landscape represent actual declines in 
salamanders over the past 20 to 30 years.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (U.S.C. 1533 et seq.) and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth the procedures for adding species to 
the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 
Under section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be 
endangered or threatened based on any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats to the 
species, we must look beyond the exposure of the species to a factor to 
evaluate whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that 
causes actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor 
and the species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat and, 
during the subsequent status review, we attempt to determine how 
significant a threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives, or 
contributes to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the 
species may warrant listing as endangered or threatened as those terms 
are defined in the Act. However, the identification of factors that 
could impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a 
finding that the information in the petition and our files is 
substantial. The information must include evidence sufficient to 
suggest that these factors may be operative threats that act on the 
species to the point that the species may meet the definition of 
endangered or threatened under the Act.
    In making this finding, information pertaining to the salamander in 
relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act is 
discussed below.

Factor A. Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range

    Under Factor A, we considered whether the Jemez Mountains 
salamander is threatened by the following: fire exclusion and severe 
wildland fires; forest composition and structure conversions; post-fire 
rehabilitation; forest and fire management (fire use, fire suppression, 
mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels, and forest silvicultural 
practices

[[Page 54826]]

(timber harvest, salvage logging, forest thinning, and forest 
restoration projects)); dams and mining; private (residential) 
development; geothermal development; roads, trails, and habitat 
fragmentation; recreation; and livestock grazing.
Fire Exclusion and Severe Wildland Fires
    Fire exclusion and wildfire threaten the salamander. In the Jemez 
Mountains, the results of over 100 years of fire suppression and fire 
exclusion (along with cattle grazing and other stressors) have altered 
forest composition and structure and increased the threat of wildfire 
in Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests in semi-arid western 
interior forests (Belsky and Blumenthal 1997, p. 318). Fire has been an 
important process in the Jemez Mountains for at least several thousand 
years (Allen 1989, p. 69), indicating the salamander evolved with fire. 
Frequent, low-intensity, surface fires and patchy, small scale, high-
intensity fires in the Jemez Mountains historically maintained 
salamander habitat. These fires spread widely through the grassy 
understory fuels, or erupted on very small scales. The natural fire 
intervals prior to the 1900s ranged from 5 to 25 years across the Jemez 
Mountains (Allen 2001, p. 4). Dry mixed conifer forests burned on 
average every 12 years, whereas wet mixed conifer forests averaged 
every 20 years. Historically, patchy surface fires within mixed conifer 
forests would have thinned stands and created natural fuel breaks that 
would limit the extent of fires. Still, in very dry years, there is 
evidence of fires occurring across entire watersheds, but they did not 
burn with high severity over entire mountain sides (Jemez Mountains 
Adaptive Planning Workshop Session II Final Notes 2010, p. 7). Aspen 
stands are evidence of historic patchy crown fires that represent the 
relatively small-scale, stand-replacing fires that have historically 
occurred in the Jemez Mountains, which are also associated with 
significantly dry years (Margolis et al. 2007, p. 2236).
    These historic fire patterns were interrupted in the late 1800s 
through the elimination of fine fuels as a result of livestock 
overgrazing and managed fire suppression. This interruption and 
exclusion of fire promoted the development of high forest stand 
densities with heavy accumulations of dead and downed fuel, and growth 
of ladder fuels (the dense mid-story trees that favor development of 
crown fires) (Allen 2001, pp. 5-6). In fact, fire exclusion in this 
area converted historically low- to moderate-severity fire regimes with 
small, patchy fires to high-severity, large-scale, stand-replacing 
fires that have the potential to significantly destroy or degrade 
salamander habitat (USFS 2009a, pp. 8-9). The disruption of the natural 
cycle of fire and subsequent accumulation of continuous fuels within 
the coniferous forests on south and north-facing slopes has increased 
the chances of a severe wildfire affecting large areas of salamander 
habitat within the Jemez Mountains (e.g., see USFS 2009a, 2009b).
    Prescribed fire at VCNP has been limited, with only one burn in 
2004 that was described as creating a positive vegetation response 
(ENTRIX 2009, p. 97). A prescribed fire plan is expected to be 
developed (ENTRIX 2009, p. 97), as there is concern for severe wildland 
fires to occur (Parmenter 2009, cited in Service 2010). The planned 
Scooter Peak prescribed burn between the VCNP and Bandelier National 
Monument is a fuel reduction project in occupied salamander habitat, 
but is small in scale (approximately 960 acres (ac) (390 hectares (ha)) 
(ENTRIX 2009, p. 2). Although future thinning of secondary growth may 
somewhat lessen the risk of severe wildland fires in areas, these 
efforts are not likely at a sufficient geographic scale to lessen the 
overall threat to the salamander.
    The frequency of large-scale, high-severity, stand-replacing 
wildland fires has increased in the latter part of the 20th century in 
the Jemez Mountains. This increase is due to landscape-wide buildup of 
woody fuels associated with removal of grassy fuels from extreme year-
round livestock overgrazing in the late 1800s, and subsequent fire 
suppression (Allen 1989, pp. 94-97; 2001, pp. 5-6). The majority of 
wildfires over the past 20 years has exhibited crown fire behavior and 
burned in the direction of the prevailing south or southwest winds 
(USFS 2009a, p. 17). The first severe wildland fire in the Jemez 
Mountains was the La Mesa Fire in 1977, burning 15,400 ac (6,250 ha). 
Subsequent fires included the Buchanon Fire in 1993 (11,543 ac (4,671 
ha)), the Dome Fire in 1996 (16,516 ac (6,684 ha)), the Oso Fire in 
1997 (6,508 ac (2,634 ha)), the Cerro Grande Fire in 2000 (42,970 ac 
(17,390 ha)), and the Lakes Fire Complex (Lakes and BMG Fires) in 2002 
(4,026 ac (1,629 ha)) (Cummer 2005, pp. 3-4). Over the past 15 years, 
severe wildland fires have burned about 36 percent of modeled or known 
salamander habitat on USFS lands (USFS 2009, p. 1). Following the Cerro 
Grande Fire, the General Accounting Office reported that these 
conditions are common in much of the western part of the United States 
turning areas into a ``virtual tinderbox'' (General Accounting Office 
2000, p. 15). The threat of severe wildland fires to salamander habitat 
remains high due to the tons of dead and down fuel, overcrowded tree 
conditions leading to poor forest health, and dense thickets of small-
diameter trees. There is a 36 percent probability of having at least 
one large fire of 4,000 ac (over 1,600 ha) every year for the next 20 
years in the southwest Jemez Mountains (USFS 2009a, p. 19). Moreover, 
the probability of exceeding this estimated threshold of 4,000 ac 
(1,600 ha) burned in the same time period is 65 percent (USFS 2009a, p. 
19). As an example of the severe fire risk, the Thompson Ridge-San 
Antonio area, in Unit 1, has extensive ladder fuels and surface fuels 
estimated at over 20 tons per acre, and the understory in areas 
contains over 800 dense sapling trees per acre within the mixed conifer 
and Ponderosa pine stands (USFS 2009a, pp. 24-25). The canyon 
topography aligns with south winds and steep slopes, making this area 
more susceptible to crown fire (USFS 2009a, pp. 24-25).
    Increases in soil and microhabitat temperatures, which generally 
increase with increasing burn severity, can have profound effects on 
salamander behavior and physiology, and thus their ability to persist 
subsequent to severe wildland fires. Following the Cerro Grande Fire, 
soil temperatures were recorded under potential salamander cover 
objects in areas occupied by the salamander (Cummer and Painter 2007, 
pp. 26-37). Soil temperatures in areas of high severity burn exceeded 
the salamander's thermal tolerance, which would have resulted in the 
death of any salamanders present (Spotila 1972, p. 97; Cummer and 
Painter 2007, pp. 28-31). Even in moderate and high-severity burned 
areas where fires did not result in the death of salamanders, the 
microhabitat conditions, such as those occurring during the Cerro 
Grande Wildfire, would limit the timing and duration that the 
salamanders could be surface active (feeding and mating). Moreover, 
elevated temperatures lead to increases in oxygen consumption, heart 
rate, and metabolic rate, resulting in decreased body water and body 
mass (Whitford 1968, pp. 247-251). Physiological stress from elevated 
temperatures may also increase susceptibility to disease and parasites. 
Effects from temperature increases are discussed in greater detail 
under Factor E.
    Severe wildland fires typically increase soil pH, which could 
affect the

[[Page 54827]]

salamander. In one study of the Jemez Mountains salamander, soil pH was 
the single best indicator of relative abundance of salamanders at a 
site (Ramotnik 1988, pp. 24-25). Sites with salamanders had a pH of 6.6 
( 0.08) and sites without salamanders had a pH of 6.2 
( 0.06). In another species of a terrestrial plethodontid 
salamander, the red-backed salamander (Plethodon cinereus), soil pH 
influences and limits its distribution and occurrence as well as its 
oxygen consumption rates and growth rates (Wyman and Hawksley-Lescault 
1987, p. 1823). Similarly, Frisbie and Wyman (1991, p. 1050) found the 
disruption of sodium balance by acidic conditions in three species of 
terrestrial salamanders. A low pH substrate can also reduce body 
sodium, body water levels, and body mass (Frisbie and Wyman 1991, p. 
1050). Changes in soil pH following wildfire likely impact the 
salamander either by making the habitat less suitable or through 
physiological stress.
    Several regulatory attempts have been made to address and correct 
the altered ecological balance of New Mexico's forests resulting from a 
century of fire suppression, logging, and livestock grazing. Congress 
enacted the Community Forest Restoration Act to promote healthy 
watersheds and reduce the threat of large, high-intensity wildfires; 
insect infestation; and disease in the forests in New Mexico (H.R. 
2389, Public Law 106-393). The subsequent Omnibus Public Land 
Management Act, also called the ``Forest Landscape Restoration Act'' 
(Title, IV, Public Law III-II, 2009), established a national program 
that encourages ecological, economic, and social sustainability and 
utilization of forest restoration byproducts to benefit local rural 
economies and improve forest health. As a result, the Santa Fe National 
Forest is preparing the Southwest Jemez Mountains Landscape Assessment 
that, if funded, may reduce the threat of severe wildland fire in Units 
1 and 4 of the salamander's range over the next 10 years (USFS 2009, p. 
2). However, funding of this project is not certain, nor is it likely 
to address the short-term risk of severe wildland fire; thus, the 
efficacy of this program is unsure.
    We are not aware of any recently completed or currently funded 
large-scale projects to address the risk of severe wildland fire on the 
Jemez Ranger District of the Santa Fe National Forest. Thinning and 
burning activities in the Southwest Jemez Restoration Assessment area 
have ranged from 12 ac (5 ha) to about 7,100 ac (2,900 ha) since 1989 
(USFS 2009f, pp. 16-18). Still, most of these activities have focused 
on Ponderosa pine, with precommercial thinning (removing trees less 
than 9 inches (in) (23 centimeters (cm)) in diameter at breast height 
(dbh)) occurring on only 6,000 ac (2,400 ha) since 1986 (USFS 2009f, p. 
18). Many of the forest stands remain densely stocked, creating multi-
tiered fuels that add to crown fire risk. As such, the limited scale of 
these thinning and burning activities has not reduced the overall risk 
of severe crown fire in the area (e.g., see USFS 2009, 2009a, 2009b). 
The existing risk of wildfire on the VCNP and surrounding areas is 
uncharacteristically high and is a significant departure from historic 
conditions over 100 years ago (VCNP 2010, p. 3.1; Allen 1989, pp. ii-
346; 2001, pp. 1-10). Therefore, it is highly probable that the overall 
risk of severe wildland fire will not be significantly reduced or 
eliminated on USFS lands, National Park Service lands, the VCNP, or 
surrounding lands in the foreseeable future.
    Since 1977, these severe wildland fires have significantly degraded 
important features of salamander habitat including removal of tree 
canopy and shading, increases of soil temperature, decreases of soil 
moisture, increased pH, loss or reduction of soil organic matter, 
reduced porosity, and short-term creation of water-repelling soils. 
These and other effects limit the amount of available surface habitat 
and the timing and duration when salamanders can be surface active, 
which negatively impacts salamander behavior (e.g., foraging and 
mating). For these reasons, severe wildland fires have led to a 
reduction in the quality and quantity of the available salamander 
habitat rangewide. For this reason, the USFS believes, and we concur, 
that habitat loss from extensive, stand-replacing wildland fire 
threatens the salamander (USFS 2009c, p. 1). These effects will likely 
continue into the foreseeable future because we do not anticipate 
large-scale changes to funding or initiation of projects that would 
significantly alleviate the currently high risk of wildfire. Therefore, 
we believe that fire exclusion and suppression has substantially 
affected the salamander and this trend is expected to continue.
Forest Composition and Structure Conversions
    Changes in forest composition and structure threaten the salamander 
by directly altering soil moisture, soil temperature, soil pH, relative 
humidity, and air temperature. With an increase of small-diameter trees 
on the Jemez Mountains, there is an increase in demand for water 
required for evapotranspiration, which in turn can lead to increased 
drying of the soil. Limited water leads to drought-stressed trees, and 
increases their susceptibility to burning, insects, and disease. This 
is especially true on south-facing slopes, where less moisture is 
available or during times of earlier snowmelt. Furthermore, reduced 
soil moisture may disrupt surface activities of salamanders (e.g., 
foraging) or alter prey availability. The degree of these impacts is 
currently unknown; however, alteration of forest composition and 
structure contribute to increased risk of forest die-offs from disease 
and insects throughout the range of the salamander (USFS 2002, pp. 11-
13; 2009d, p. 1; 2009a, pp. 8-9; 2010, pp. 1-11; Allen 2001, p. 6). We 
find that the interrelated contributions from changes in vegetation to 
large-scale, high-severity wildfire and forest die-offs are of a 
significant magnitude across the range of the species (e.g., see ``Fire 
Exclusion and Severe Wildland Fires'' section, above), and in addition 
to continued predicted future changes to forested habitat within the 
range of the species, threaten the salamander.
    Preliminary data collected from the VCNP indicates that an increase 
in the amount of tree canopy cover in an area influences the amount of 
snow that is able to reach the ground, and can decrease the amount of 
soil moisture and infiltration (Enquist et al. 2009, p. 8). On the 
VCNP, 95 percent of coniferous forests have thick canopy cover with 
heavy understory fuels (VCNP 2010, pp. 3.3-3.4; USFS 2009a, p. 9). In 
these areas, snow accumulates in the tree canopy over winter, and in 
the spring can quickly evaporate without reaching or infiltrating the 
soil. For this reason, recent increases in canopy cover, resulting from 
fire exclusion and suppression, could be having significant drying 
effects on salamander habitat and threaten the salamander now and in 
the foreseeable future.
Post-fire Rehabilitation
    Post-fire management practices are often needed to restore forest 
dynamics (Beschta et al. 2004, p. 957). In 1971, USFS was given formal 
authority by Congress for Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) 
(Robichaud et al. 2000, p. 1) and integrated the evaluation of fire 
severity, funding request procedures, and treatment options. Treatment 
options implemented by USFS and BAER teams include hillslope treatments 
(grass seeding, contour-felled logs, mulch, and other methods to reduce 
surface runoff and keep post-fire soil in place, such as tilling, 
temporary fencing, erosion control fabric, straw wattles, lopping, and 
scattering of slash) and channel treatments (straw bale

[[Page 54828]]

check dams, log check dams, rock dams, and rock cage dams (gabions)) 
(Robichaud et al. 2000, pp. 11-21). Rehabilitation actions following 
the Cerro Grande fire in salamander habitat included heavy equipment 
and bulldozer operation, felling trees for safety reasons, mulching 
with straw and placement of straw bales, cutting and trenching trees 
(contour felling and securing on slope), hand and aerial seeding, and 
aerial hydromulch (wet mulch with fertilizer and seed) (USFS 2001, p. 
1). Some contour felling is likely beneficial for the salamander post-
fire because it can slow erosion and, in cases where surface rocks are 
not present or present in low numbers, the logs can also provide 
immediate cover. Following the Cerro Grande Fire, the BAER Team 
recommended felling large-diameter Douglas fir logs and cutting four 
disks off each log (rounds) to provide immediate cover for salamanders 
before summer rains (Interagency BAER Team 2000, p. 87; USFS 2001, p. 
1). It remains unknown if these measures are effective, but they 
probably benefit the salamander in the short term. Alternatively, some 
post-fire treatments (e.g., grass seeding, tilling, erosion control 
fabrics, and removal of surface rocks to build rock dams) likely 
negatively impact the salamander. The most common BAER treatment is 
grass seeding dropped from aircraft (Robichaud et al. 2000, p. 11). 
This treatment is inexpensive, rapidly increases water infiltration, 
and stabilizes soil (Robichaud et al. 2000, p. 11). Nonnative grasses 
are typically seeded because they are fast-growing and have extensive 
fibrous roots (Robichaud et al. 2000, p. 11). Nevertheless, these 
nonnative grasses have created thick mats that are impenetrable to the 
salamander because the species has short legs and cannot dig tunnels. 
The existing spaces in the soil fill with extensive roots, altering the 
sub-surface habitat in a manner that is unusable to the salamander. 
Finally, grass seeds can also contain fertilizer that is broadcast over 
large areas of habitat (e.g., hydromulch used in post-fire treatments 
for the Cerro Grande Fire). Fertilizers can contain nitrate, which is 
toxic to amphibians at certain levels (Rouse et al. 1999, p. 799). 
While the effects of seeding with nonnative grasses and the use of 
fertilizers on salamanders have not been specifically studied, this 
action has likely caused widespread adverse impacts to the salamander. 
Because this action is a common post-fire treatment, it will likely 
continue to negatively impact salamander localities from both past and 
future treatments.
    In summary, some post-fire treatments could benefit the salamander, 
such as some contour felling of logs. Additional measures, such as 
cutting and scattering rounds, can also benefit the salamander. 
However, other post-fire treatments negatively impact the salamander. 
Small-scale impacts could occur from removing rocks from habitat to 
build rock dams, and large-scale impacts include grass seeding and 
associated chemicals. We conclude that while the effects of high-
severity, stand-replacing wildfire, also referred to as severe wildland 
fires, are the most significant threat to the salamander, actions taken 
subsequent to the wildfires could determine whether the salamander will 
persist in or return to those areas. We therefore find that post-fire 
rehabilitation treatments are currently a threat to the salamander, and 
are expected to continue in the future.
Fire Use
    Fire use includes the combination of wildland fire use (the 
management of naturally ignited wildland fires to accomplish specific 
resource management objectives) and prescribed fire (any fire ignited 
by management actions to meet specific objectives) applications to meet 
natural resource objectives (USFS 2010b, p. 1). Fire use can benefit 
the salamander in the long term by reducing the risk of severe wildland 
fires and by returning the natural fire cycle to the ecosystem. 
Alternatively, other practices such as broadcast burning (i.e., 
conducting prescribed fires over large areas) consume ground litter 
that helps to create moist conditions and stabilize soil and rocky 
slopes. Depending on time of year, fire use can also impact the 
salamander if the species is active on the surface, which is typically 
from July to September. Conditions for salamander surface activity 
(wet) are often not conducive to fire. Prescribed fire in the Jemez 
Mountains is often planned for the fall (when the salamanders are not 
active), because low wind and increased moisture during this time allow 
more control, lowering chances of the fire's escape. Because fire 
historically occurred prior to July (i.e., pre-monsoon rains), the 
majority of fires likely preceded surface activity. Prescribed fires 
conducted after September, when salamanders typically return to their 
underground retreats, would be similar to a natural fire regime in the 
spring with low direct impacts because most salamanders are subsurface. 
However, it is unknown what the indirect impacts to the salamander 
would be by altering the time of year when fire is present on the 
landscape.
    Other impacts to the salamander from fire use can include digging 
fire lines, targeting the reduction of large decomposing logs, and 
chemical use (such as flares and fire retardant) in salamander habitat. 
Some impacts to the salamander can be avoided through seasonal timing 
of prescribed burns and modifying objectives (e.g., leaving large 
diameter logs, greater canopy cover) and techniques (e.g., not using 
flares or chemicals) of the prescribed fire in salamander habitat 
(Cummer 2005, pp. 2-7). As part of the Southwest Jemez Restoration 
Project proposal, the Santa Fe National Forest has set specific goals 
pertaining to the salamander including reduction of the risk of high-
intensity wildfire in salamander habitat and retention of a moisture 
regime that will sustain high-quality salamander habitat (USFS 2009a, 
p. 11). The Santa Fe National Forest intends to minimize impacts to the 
salamander and to work towards its recovery (USFS 2009, p. 4), but 
specific actions or recommendations to accomplish this goal have not 
yet been determined. If the salamander is not considered, fire use 
could make its habitat less suitable (warmer; drier; fewer large, 
decomposing logs) and kill or injure salamanders that are surface 
active. Alternatively, the species may benefit if seasonal restrictions 
and maintaining key habitat features (e.g., large logs and sufficient 
canopy cover to maintain moist microhabitats) are part of managing the 
fire. Given the current condition of forest composition and structure, 
the risks of severe wildland fire on a large geographic scale will take 
a long-term planning strategy. Fire use is critical to the long-term 
protection of the salamander's habitat, although some practices are not 
beneficial to the species and may threaten the salamander.
Fire Suppression Activities
    Similarly, fire suppression activities both protect and negatively 
impact the salamander or its habitat. For example, fire suppression 
actions that occurred in salamander habitat during the Cerro Grande 
Fire included hand line construction, backfiring with the capacity of 
burning off heavy ground cover, fire retardant drops, and bulldozer 
line (USFS 2001, p. 1). Water dropping from helicopters is another fire 
suppression technique used in the Jemez Mountains, where water is 
collected from accessible streams, ponds, or stock tanks. By dropping 
surface water into terrestrial habitat, there is a significant 
increased risk of

[[Page 54829]]

spreading aquatic pathogens into terrestrial habitats (see Factor C, 
Disease).
    Fire retardants and fire fighting foams are addressed under Factor 
E. Fire suppression actions including the use of fire retardants, water 
dropping, backfiring, and fire line construction likely impact the 
salamander; however, the magnitude of impacts from fire suppression 
remains unknown, and we do not have enough information at this time to 
determine if fire suppression actions threaten the salamander. However, 
these activities improve the chances of quick fire suppression and 
would be relatively smaller in scale and could have fewer impacts than 
a severe wildland fire. Therefore, we do not find that fire suppression 
activities are a threat to the salamander, nor do we expect them to 
become a threat in the future.
Mechanical Treatment of Hazardous Fuels
    Mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels refers to the process of 
grinding or chipping vegetation (trees and shrubs) to meet forest 
management objectives. When these treatments are used, resprouting 
vegetation often grows back in a few years, if the area is not 
maintained through prescribed fire. Mechanical treatment may include 
the use of heavy equipment or manual equipment to cut vegetation (trees 
and shrubs) and to scrape slash and other debris into piles for burning 
or mastication. Mastication equipment uses a cutting head attached to 
an overhead boom to grind, chip, or crush wood into smaller pieces and 
is able to treat vegetation on slopes up to 35 to 45 percent while 
generally having little ground impact (soil compaction or disturbance). 
The debris is left on the ground where it decomposes and provides 
erosion protection or it is burned after drying out.
    Mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels such as manual or machine 
thinning (chipping and mastication) may cause localized disturbances to 
the forest structure that can impact the salamander. For example, 
removal of overstory tree canopy or ground cover within salamander 
habitat may cause desiccation of soil or rocky substrates. 
Additionally, tree-felling or use of heavy equipment has the potential 
to disturb the substrate, resulting in destabilization of talus and 
compaction of soil, which may reduce sub-surface interstices used by 
salamanders as refuges or for their movements. Similarly, if 
salamanders are surface active, any of these activities could crush 
salamanders present under surface cover objects (through use of heavy 
equipment or heavy foot traffic).
    Also of concern is soil compaction from the use of heavy equipment. 
The masticator largely operated on skid trails (temporary trails used 
to transport trees, logs, or other forest products), and mastication 
did not increase soil compaction, because the machinery traveled on 
trails covered with masticated materials (wood chips, etc.), which more 
evenly distributed the weight of the machinery and reduced soil 
compaction (Moghaddas and Stephens 2008, p. 3104). Activities that 
compact soil, remove excessive canopy cover, or are conducted while 
salamanders are surface active would be detrimental to the salamander 
and its habitat. If mechanical treatment and hazardous fuels activities 
are conducted in a manner that minimizes impacts to the salamander 
while reducing the risk of severe wildland fire, the salamander could 
ultimately benefit from the reduction in the threat of severe wildland 
fire and the improvement in the structure and composition of the 
forest. While mechanical treatments likely impact a few individual 
salamanders, we do not have enough information at this time to 
determine whether mechanical treatments threaten the species.
Forest Silvicultural Practices
    Forest silvicultural practices (the care and cultivation of forest 
trees) threaten the salamander. Many areas of the landscape in the 
Jemez Mountains has been fragmented by past commercial (trees greater 
than 9 in (23 cm) dbh) and pre-commercial (trees less than 9 in (23 cm) 
dbh) timber harvesting. Much of the forests of the Jemez Mountains lack 
large-diameter trees and have become overgrown with small-diameter 
trees. Salamander localities are found generally within the intact 
stands of mature forest, but can still be found in areas where evidence 
of logging exists. We assessed whether timber harvest (logging) or 
salvage logging threaten the salamander.
    From 1935 to 1972, logging (particularly clear-cut logging) was 
conducted on VCNP (ENTRIX 2009, p. 164). These timber activities 
resulted in about 50 percent of VCNP being logged, with over 1,600 
kilometers (km) (1,000 miles (mi)) of 1960s era logging roads (ENTRIX 
2009, p. 164) being built in winding and spiraling patterns around 
hills (ENTRIX 2009, pp. 59-60). On the VCNP, 95 percent of forest 
stands contain dense thickets of small-diameter trees (VCNP 2010, pp. 
3.3-3.4). This multi-tiered forest structure is similar to surrounding 
areas and provides ladder fuels that favor the development of crown 
fires (Allen 2001, pp. 5-6; USFS 2009a, p. 10). Additionally, all 
forest types on the VCNP contain very few late-stage mature trees 
greater than 16 in (41 cm) dbh (less than 10 percent of the overall 
cover) (VCNP 2010, pp. 3.4, 3.6-3.23). The lack of large trees is an 
artifact of intense logging, mostly from clear-cutting practices in the 
1960s (VCNP 2010, p. 3.4), and we believe this to be similar for 
surrounding forests. Clear-cutting degrades forest floor microhabitats 
by eliminating shading and leaf litter, increasing soil surface 
temperature, and reducing moisture (Petranka 1998, p. 16).
    In a comparison of four logged sites and five unlogged sites in 
Jemez Mountains salamander habitat, Ramotnik (1986, p. 8) reports that 
a total of 47 salamanders were observed at four of the five unlogged 
sites, while no salamanders were observed on any of the logged sites. 
It is unclear whether salamanders were observed at the sites prior to 
logging, but significant differences in habitat features (soil pH, 
litter depth, and log size) between the logged and unlogged sites are 
reported. On the unlogged sites, salamanders were associated with cover 
objects that were closer together and more decayed, and that had a 
higher canopy cover, greater moss and lichen cover, and lower 
surrounding needle cover, compared to cover objects on logged sites 
(Ramotnik 1986, p. 8). Cover objects on logged sites were less 
decomposed and accessible by the salamanders, had a shallower 
surrounding litter depth, and were associated with a more acidic soil 
than were cover objects on the unlogged sites (Ramotnik 1986, p. 8).
    Consistent with the findings of Ramotnik (1986, p. 8), deMaynadier 
and Hunter (1995; in Olson et al. 2009, p. 6) reviewed 18 studies and 
found that salamander abundance after timber harvest was 3.5 times 
greater on controls than in clear-cut areas. Furthermore, Petranka et 
al. (1993; in Olson et al. 2009, p. 6) found that Plethodon abundance 
and richness in mature forest were five times higher than those in 
recent clear cuts, and they estimated that it would take as much as 50 
to 70 years for clearcut populations to return to pre-clearcut levels. 
In the Jemez Mountains, historic clearcut logging practices likely led 
to significant habitat loss for the salamander with effects that 
continue today.
    The majority of salamander habitat has been heavily logged, which 
has resulted in changes in stand structure and a paucity of large-
diameter trees. This lack of large-diameter trees means

[[Page 54830]]

that there is a limited source for future large, decomposing logs 
needed for high-quality salamander habitat. Ramotnik (1986, p. 12) 
reports that logs with salamanders present were significantly larger 
and wetter than those without salamanders. Further, most salamanders 
were found in well decomposed logs. In a similar plethodontid 
salamander, large logs provide refuge from warmer temperatures and 
resiliency from impacts that can warm and dry habitat (Kluber et al. 
2009, p. 31).
    On the VCNP, only minor selective logging has occurred since 1972, 
and it is expected that some thinning of second growth forests will 
continue to occur to prevent severe wildfires. However, no commercial 
logging is proposed or likely in the foreseeable future (Parmenter 
2009b, cited in Service 2010). Although commercial timber harvest on 
the Santa Fe National Forest has declined appreciably since 1988 (Fink 
2008, pp. 9, 19), the effects from historical logging and associated 
roads will continue to threaten the salamander and are expected to 
continue in the foreseeable future.
    Salvage cutting (logging) removes dead, dying, damaged, or 
deteriorating trees while the wood is still merchantable (Wegner 1984, 
p. 421). Sanitation cutting, similar to salvage, removes the same kinds 
of trees as well as those susceptible to attack, but for the purpose of 
reducing the spread of biotic pests (Wegner 1984, p. 421). Both types 
of cutting are used in salamander habitat, and are referred to as 
``salvage logging.'' Salvage logging is a common response to forest 
disturbance (Lindenmayer et al. 2008, p. 4) and, in salamander habitat, 
is most likely to occur after a forest die-off resulting from fire, 
disease, insects, or drought. The purposes for salvage logging in the 
Jemez Mountains have included firewood for local use, timber for small 
and large mills, salvage before economic decay, creation of diverse 
healthy and productive timber stands, management of stands to minimize 
insect and disease losses (USFS 1996, p. 4), and recovery of the timber 
value of fire-killed trees (USFS 2003, p. 1). When conducted in 
salamander habitat, it can further reduce the quality of the habitat 
remaining after the initial disturbance by removing or reducing the 
shading afforded by dead standing trees (Moeur and Guthrie 1984, p. 
140) and future salamander cover objects (removal of trees precludes 
their recruitment to the forest floor), and by interfering with habitat 
recovery (Lindenmayer et al. 2008, p. 13).
    Recent salvage logging within the range of the salamander occurred 
following the Lakes and BMG Wildfire. The USFS stated that mitigation 
measures for the Lakes and BMG Wildfire Timber Salvage Project would 
further protect the salamander and enhance salamander habitat by 
immediately providing slash and down logs (USFS 2003, pp. 4-5). 
Mitigation for the salvage logging project included conducting 
activities during winter to avoid soil compaction, and providing for 
higher snag retention (by leaving all Douglas fir trees (16 percent 
fire-killed trees) and 10 percent of other large snags) to provide 
future down log habitat (USFS 2003, p. 29). These mitigation measures 
were developed in consultation with NMEST in an effort to minimize 
impacts to salamander from salvage logging; however, NMEST recommended 
that salvage logging be excluded from occupied salamander habitat 
because it was not clear that even with the additional mitigations that 
it would meet the conservation objectives of the Cooperative Management 
Plan (NMEST 2003, p. 1). The mitigation measures would likely benefit 
the salamander in the short term if conducted without salvage logging. 
It is not known if mitigation measures offset the impacts of salvage 
logging in salamander habitat; however, Lindenmayer et al. (2008, p. 
13) reports that salvage logging interferes with natural ecological 
recovery and may increase the likelihood and intensity of subsequent 
fires. We believe that removal of trees limits the amount of future 
cover and allows additional warming and drying of habitat. The 
potential for large-scale forest die-offs from wildfire, insect 
outbreak, disease, or drought is high in the Jemez Mountains (see 
Factors A and E), which may result in future salvage logging in 
salamander habitat in the foreseeable future. We believe that salvage 
logging in salamander habitat further diminishes habitat quality and 
may be a determining factor of salamander persistence subsequent to 
forest die-off.
    Some timber harvest activities likely pose no threat to the 
salamander. For example, removal of hazard trees may have minimal 
disturbance to surrounding soils or substrates, especially if removal 
is conducted when the species is not surface-active (i.e., seasonal 
restrictions). This type of localized impact may affect a few 
individuals but is not likely to affect a population or be considered a 
threat. Likewise, precommercial thinning (removal of trees less than 9 
in (22.9 cm) dbh) or shrub and brush removal (without the use of 
herbicides) to control vegetation, and without disturbing or compacting 
large areas of the surrounding soils, likely could be conducted without 
adverse effects on the salamander.
    In summary, current commercial logging levels are very low and do 
not threaten the salamander. Because most of the high-quality, large-
diameter trees have been removed from the Jemez Mountains, we believe 
that commercial logging levels will remain low for the foreseeable 
future. Nevertheless, impacts from past commercial logging activities 
continue to have detrimental effects to the salamander and its habitat. 
These past activities removed large-diameter trees, removed forest 
canopy, created roads, compacted soil, and disturbed other important 
habitat features. These effects of historic logging include the warming 
and drying of habitat, and no source for future large cover objects 
(decomposing logs) that contribute to habitat complexity and 
resiliency. Salvage logging further diminishes salamander habitat 
subsequent to disturbance. Therefore, we conclude that the salamander 
continues to be threatened by forest silvicultural practices, including 
salvage logging, and we expect that these practices and the resulting 
threats to the species will continue in the future.
Dams
    Following the 2000 Cerro Grande Fire, water retention dams were 
constructed within potential salamander habitat to minimize soil 
erosion within burned areas (NMDGF 2001, p. 1; NMEST 2002, pp.1-2; Kutz 
2002, p. 1). Surveys were not conducted prior to construction, and we 
do not know if the areas were occupied by salamanders, but the areas 
are in the vicinity of occupied salamander habitat. Because these types 
of structures were installed to slow erosion subsequent to wildfire, 
additional dams or flood control features could be constructed within 
salamander habitat in the foreseeable future following severe wildland 
fires. Some individual salamanders may be killed or injured by this 
activity; however, the impact to the species and habitat from 
construction of retention dams would be relatively minor. For this 
reason, we do not consider the construction of dams to currently be a 
significant threat to the salamander, nor do we expect dam construction 
to be a threat to the species in the future.
Mining
    Pumice mining activities (e.g., Copar Pumice Company, the Copar 
South Pit Pumice Mine, and the El Cajete Pumice Mine) have been 
evaluated for impacts to the salamander (USFS 1995, pp. 1-14;

[[Page 54831]]

1996, pp. 1-3). Pumice mines are located within areas of volcanic 
substrate that are unlikely to support salamanders (USFS 2009c, p. 2). 
However, associated infrastructure from expansion of the El Cajete 
Mine, such as access roads and heavy equipment staging areas, may have 
the potential to be located in potential salamander habitat. Although 
no decision on authorizing the extension to the El Cajete Mine has been 
made (USFS 2009. p. 2), these activities would be small in scale and 
not likely considered a threat to the species, either currently or in 
the future.
Private (Residential) Development
    Private property development threatens the salamander. Although the 
majority of salamander habitat is located on Federally managed lands, 
private land contains substantially sized, contiguous areas of 
salamander habitat. Additionally, some areas with salamander habitat on 
the Santa Fe National Forest could be developed for private use (as 
proposed in USFS 1997, pp. 1-4; USFS 1998, pp. 1-2). Development can 
destroy and fragment habitat through the construction of homes and 
associated infrastructure (e.g., roads, driveways, and buildings), 
making those areas unusable to salamanders and likely resulting in 
mortalities to salamanders within those areas. These activities have 
reduced the quantity and quality of salamander habitat primarily within 
the southern part of Unit 1, the central and eastern parts of Unit 3, 
and large inholdings in Unit 4. As the human population continues to 
increase in New Mexico, we believe development will likely continue to 
directly affect the salamander within these units in the foreseeable 
future. These activities will likely be in the form of new housing and 
associated roads and infrastructure. Because development occurs, or is 
likely to occur, in part of the range of the salamander, and because we 
anticipate the continuing loss and degradation of habitat in these 
areas, we determine that private property development currently 
threatens the salamander, and this threat will con