Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Species Status for Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus) Throughout Its Range, 55599-55627 [2013-21583]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 175 (Tuesday, September 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55599-55627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21583]



[[Page 55599]]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 175

September 10, 2013

Part III





Department of the Interior





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





 Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Species Status for Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon 
neomexicanus) Throughout Its Range; Final Rule

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

[[Page 55600]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0063; 4500030113]
RIN 1018-AY24


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Endangered Species Status for Jemez Mountains Salamander (Plethodon 
neomexicanus) Throughout Its Range

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, determine endangered 
species status under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as 
amended, for the Jemez Mountains salamander (Plethodon neomexicanus). 
This final rule implements the Federal protections provided by the Act 
for this species. We have also determined that critical habitat for the 
Jemez Mountains salamander is prudent and determinable in the proposed 
rule and will soon publish in the Federal Register our final 
determination designating critical habitat for the Jemez Mountains 
salamander.

DATES: This rule becomes effective October 10, 2013.

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available on the Internet at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/NewMexico/index.cfm, and the rule as well as 
comments and materials received are available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R2-ES-2012-0063. Comments and 
materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the 
preparation of this rule, will also be available for public inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office, 2105 Osuna NE., 
Albuquerque, NM 87113; by telephone 505-346-2525; or by facsimile 505-
346-2542.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wally Murphy, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office 
(see ADDRESSES section). If you use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Act, a species or 
subspecies may warrant protection through listing if it is endangered 
or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of its range. 
Listing a species as an endangered or threatened species can only be 
completed by issuing a rule. On September 12, 2012 (77 FR 56482), we 
proposed to list the Jemez Mountains salamander (Plethodon 
neomexicanus) under the Act as an endangered species and proposed to 
designate critical habitat. In that document we explained that the 
species currently faces numerous threats of high magnitude, and, 
therefore, qualifies for listing and requested additional information 
and comments on the proposed listing. This final rule considers all 
comments received by peer reviewers, tribes, State agencies, Federal 
agencies, and the public regarding the proposed rule to list the Jemez 
Mountains salamander. This is our final determination to list the Jemez 
Mountains salamander as endangered.
    The basis for our action. Under the Act, a species may be 
determined to be an endangered or threatened species based on any of 
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; and (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We have determined that the Jemez Mountains 
salamander meets the definition of an endangered species due to three 
of these five factors.
    Peer review and public comment. We sought comments from independent 
specialists to ensure that our designation is based on scientifically 
sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We invited these peer reviewers 
to comment on our listing proposal. We also considered all comments and 
information received during the comment period.

Background

Previous Federal Actions

    Please refer to the proposed listing rule for the Jemez Mountains 
salamander (77 FR 56482; September 12, 2012) for a detailed description 
of previous Federal actions concerning this species.
    We have also determined that critical habitat for the Jemez 
Mountains salamander is prudent and determinable in the proposed rule 
and will soon publish in the Federal Register our final determination 
designating critical habitat for the Jemez Mountains salamander.

Species Information

    The Jemez Mountains 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 a member of the family Plethodontidae, is 
strictly terrestrial, and does not use standing surface water for any 
life stage. Respiration (the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide) 
occurs through the skin, which requires a moist microclimate for gas 
exchange.
Taxonomy and Species Description
    The Jemez Mountains 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 of the Jemez Mountains salamander are recognized.
    The Jemez Mountains salamander is one of two species of 
plethodontid salamanders' endemic (native and restricted to a 
particular region) to New Mexico: the Jemez Mountains salamander and 
the Sacramento Mountains salamander (Aneides hardii). Unlike most other 
North American plethodontid salamanders, these two species are 
geographically isolated from all other species of Plethodon and 
Aneides.
    Genetic studies on plethodontid salamanders in North America 
suggest that the Jemez Mountains salamander is more closely related to 
western Plethodon species than to eastern Plethodon salamanders, and 
that the Larch Mountain salamander (P. larselli) found in Oregon and 
Washington is no longer considered the most closely related species to 
the Jemez Mountains salamander (Mahoney 2001, p. 184). In many of the 
analyses presented by Mahoney 2001 (entire), the Jemez Mountains 
salamander is basal to all other western Plethodon (that is, it 
maintains the most derived characters, or, that other western Plethodon 
are more closely related to each other than any are to the Jemez 
Mountains salamander), but still, the relationship of the Jemez 
Mountains salamander to other western plethodontid salamanders remains 
partially unresolved. Nonetheless, it has been demonstrated that the 
Jemez Mountains salamander's closest relatives are western

[[Page 55601]]

salamanders of the Pacific Northwest of the United States and include 
Van Dyke's salamander (P. vandykei), Larch Mountain salamander (P. 
larselli), Siskiyou Mountains salamander (P. stormi), Del Norte 
salamander (P. elongatus), western red-backed salamander (P. 
vehiculum), Dunn's salamander (P. dunni), and the green salamander 
(Aneides aeneus) (Mahoney 2001, pp. 178-183). These species, including 
the Jemez Mountains salamander, are thought to be the result of an old, 
rapid diversification (Mahoney 2001, p. 185).
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 may not have developed here, 
but evidence from exposed rocky areas (felsenmeers) 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 Jemez Mountains 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 the U.S. 
Forest Service (USFS), the National Park Service (Bandelier National 
Monument), Valles Caldera National Preserve, and Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, with some habitat located on tribal land and private lands 
(New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 2000, p. 1). The Valles Caldera 
National Preserve is located west of Los Alamos, New Mexico, and is 
part of the National Forest System (owned by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture), 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 appointed by the President 
of the United States with distinct areas of experience or activity 
(Valles Caldera Trust 2005, pp. 1-11). Prior to Federal ownership in 
2000, the Valles Caldera National Preserve was privately held. The 
species predominantly occurs at an elevation between 7,200 and 9,500 
feet (ft) (2,200 and 2,900 meters (m)) (Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28), 
but has been found as low as 6,998 ft (2,133 m) (Ramotnik 1988, p. 78) 
and as high as 10,990 ft (3,350 m) (Ramotnik 1988, p. 84).
Biology
    The Jemez Mountains salamander is strictly terrestrial, does not 
possess lungs, and does not use standing surface water for any life 
stage. Respiration (the exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide) occurs 
through the skin, which requires a moist microclimate for gas exchange. 
Substrate moisture through its effect on absorption and loss of water 
is probably the most important factor in the ecology of this 
terrestrial salamander, as it is in other strictly terrestrial 
salamander species (Heatwole and Lim 1961, p. 818). The Jemez Mountains 
salamander spends much of its life underground, but can be found above 
ground when relative environmental conditions are warm and wet, which 
is typically from July through September; but occasional salamander 
observations have been made in May, June, and October. Relatively warm 
and wet environmental conditions suitable for salamander aboveground 
activity are likely influenced by melting snow and summer monsoon 
rains. When active above ground, the species is usually found under 
decaying logs, rocks, bark, or moss mats or inside decaying logs or 
stumps.
    Changes in pH (acidity or alkalinity) can affect plethodontid 
salamander behavioral and physiological responses (Cummer and Painter 
2007, p. 34). 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 soil pH 
of 6.6 ( 0.08) and sites without salamanders had a soil 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 salamander body sodium, body water levels, 
and body mass (Frisbie and Wyman 1991, p. 1050). Significant 
differences in habitat features (soil pH, litter depth, and log size) 
were reported between the logged and unlogged sites (Ramotnik 1986, p. 
8). We do not know if salamanders actually occupied the logged sites 
prior to logging, but significant differences in habitat features (soil 
pH, litter depth, and log size) between the logged and unlogged sites 
were reported (Ramotnik 1986, p. 8). The type and quantity of 
vegetation affects soil pH (e.g. pine needles are acidic, decomposed 
pine needles can increase the soils acidity), and thus could also 
affect the salamander.
    Salamander prey from aboveground foraging is diverse in size and 
type, with ants (Hymenoptera, Formicidae), mites (Acari), and beetles 
(Coleoptera) being most important (most numerous, most voluminous, and 
most frequent) 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 
categories (ants, mites, and beetles).
    The aboveground microhabitat (under or inside cover objects) 
temperature for some Jemez Mountains salamanders ranged from 43 to 63 
degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (6.0 to 17.0 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)), 
with an average of 54.9 [deg]F (12.7 [deg]C) (Williams 1972, p. 18). 
Significantly more salamanders were observed under logs where 
temperatures were closest to the average temperature (Williams 1972, p. 
19).
    Sexual maturity is attained at 3 to 4 years in age for females and 
3 years for males (Williams 1976, pp. 31, 35). Reproduction in the wild 
has not been observed; however, based on observed physiological 
changes, mating is believed to occur above ground between July and 
August during the rainy season (Williams 1976, pp. 31-36). Based on 
examination of 57 female salamanders in the wild and 1 clutch of eggs 
laid in a laboratory setting, Williams (1978, p. 475) concluded that 
females likely lay 7 or 8 eggs every 2 to 3 years. Eggs are thought to 
be laid underground in the spring, about 9 to 10 months after mating 
occurs (Williams 1978, p. 475). Fully formed Jemez Mountains 
salamanders hatch from the eggs.
    The lifespan of the salamander in the wild is unknown. However, in 
2013 a marked salamander was observed at a previous study site where 
salamanders were uniquely marked with fluorescent elastomer (a colored 
epoxy injected under the skin) from 1996 through 2000. Based on the 
colors used, this salamander was likely marked in 1998 or 1999. 
Juvenile salamanders received a different kind of marking, indicating 
that this wild salamander is minimally 14 years old, but more likely 
15-17 years old.

[[Page 55602]]

Movements, Home Range, and Dispersal
    Ramotnik (1988, pp. 11-12) used implanted radioactive wires in 
polyethylene tubing to track nine individual Jemez Mountain salamanders 
for durations between 2 days and 6 weeks, monitoring their movements 
every 1 to 3 days, and two salamanders were tracked every 2 hours 
throughout a 12-hour period. Ramotnik (1988, p. 27) reported that 
individual distances salamanders moved between consecutive observations 
ranged from 0 to 108 ft (0 to 33 m) and that 73 percent of recorded 
movements were less than 3.3 ft (1 m). In 59 of 109 observations, 
salamanders did not move. When the zero-distance movements were 
excluded from analysis, the average distance salamanders moved was 7.8 
ft (2.4 m), and the greatest total recorded distance of an individual 
was 144 ft (43.9 m) over 22 days (Ramotnik 1988, p. 28). Ramotnik 
(1988, p. 32) also estimated the home range of six salamanders with 
these data and reports the average home range was 86 square feet 
(ft\2\) (8.0 square meters (m\2\)); males had a larger home range (137 
ft\2\ (12.7 m\2\)) than females (78 ft\2\ (7.2 m\2\)). The individuals 
that had larger home ranges (greater than 54 ft\2\ (5.0 m\2\)) were 
often found returning to the same cover object; whereas individuals 
with home ranges less than 54 ft\2\ (5 m\2\) rarely returned to the 
same spot (Ramotnik 1988, p. 32). The smallest estimated home range was 
10.7 ft\2\ (1 m\2\) and the largest 220.7 ft\2\ (20.5 m\2\) (Ramotnik 
1988, p. 28).
    In a mark-recapture study conducted by the New Mexico Department of 
Game and Fish (NMDGF), the average distance of 32 movements measured 
via recapture either in the same year or from year to year, measured 
over the course of approximately 10 years within a 164-ft-by-164-ft 
(50-m-by-50-m) plot, was 19.6 ft (5.98 m), with a maximum distance 
moved from original capture site of 60.7 ft (18.5 m) (NMDGF 2000, p. 
15). In this same study, one salamander was observed near the same log 
nearly 5 years later (NMDGF 2000, p. 16). The data from this study 
suggest that Jemez Mountains salamanders generally move very little 
(NMDGF 2000, p. 16). While the data on Jemez Mountains salamander 
movements are limited because of small sample size, they provide 
important information on the relatively small movements made by 
individuals and their relatively small home range, and show that, 
occasionally, individuals can make larger movements.
    For another well-studied terrestrial salamander, the red-backed 
salamander (Plethodon cinereus), researchers have conflicting evidence 
regarding dispersal abilities. Some information suggests this 
salamander exhibits small movements, even across multiple years, 
consisting primarily of small home ranges and with little movement 
among cover objects (53-269 ft\2\, 5-25 m\2\) (Kleeberger and Werner 
1982, p. 411). However, there is other evidence of moderate-distance 
homing ability (90 m, 295 ft) (Kleeberger and Werner 1982, p. 411). 
Cabe et al. 2007 (pp. 53-60) measured gene flow of red-backed 
salamanders across a continuous forested habitat as an indicator of the 
salamander's dispersal. They suggested that gene flow and dispersal 
frequency were normally low, indicating that red-backed salamanders 
generally do not move much, but under certain circumstances, they might 
disperse farther than normal. These unique conditions occur when the 
population density of red-backed salamanders is so high in a given area 
that the habitat is saturated with them, resulting in a reduction in 
breeding success, and other, less densely populated habitat is 
available (Cabe et al. 2007, p. 53). In a more closely related 
terrestrial salamander, the Siskiyou Mountains salamander, individuals 
are reported to make daily to seasonal vertical migrations in the 
ground surface as microclimate conditions change, but not extensive 
horizontal movements (Olson et al. 2009, p. 3). Furthermore, genetic 
analyses indicate limited gene flow in the Siskiyou Mountains 
salamander and that populations may have been on isolated evolutionary 
pathways for a very long time (Olson et al. 2009, p. 3).
    Because the Jemez Mountains salamander makes very small horizontal 
movements and has limited potential for long-distance horizontal 
movements, habitat connectivity limitations could have profound effects 
on populations. These effects could occur from increased vulnerability 
to genetic drift (the process where small population size causes chance 
alterations in the genetic composition of a population by natural 
selection) and inbreeding, fewer successful breeding opportunities, and 
increased susceptibility to stochastic events (occurring in a random 
pattern, such as floods, fires, and tornados). Gene flow and population 
structure has not been assessed in the Jemez Mountains salamander, but 
would provide useful information for population management and 
identification of important areas to protect in order to maintain 
habitat connectivity.
Habitat
    The strictly terrestrial Jemez Mountains 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) (Reagan 1967, p. 17; 
Degenhardt et al. 1996, p. 28). Although pure stands of Ponderosa pine 
may not be considered ideal habitat, the species has occasionally been 
found in this habitat. The species has also occasionally been found in 
spruce-fir and aspen stands, and high-elevation meadows. However, these 
habitat types have not been adequately surveyed so the extent to which 
salamanders use these habitats is not fully known. Predominant 
understory trees include Rocky Mountain maple (Acer glabrum), New 
Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana), oceanspray (Holodiscus sp.), and 
various shrubby oaks (Quercus spp.) (Reagan 1967, p. 17; Degenhardt et 
al. 1996, p. 28).
    Everett (2003, entire) reported habitat variables for 23 sites 
where Jemez Mountains salamanders were found. Everett (2003) reported 
that the salamander occurred on all slope aspects (p. 21) (the average 
slope ranged from 4 to 40.5 degrees (p. 24)); were within 14.0 to 99.8 
percent canopy cover and averaged 58.2 to 94.3 percent canopy cover (p. 
24); and were found under logs (35 percent), rocks (34 percent), bark 
(9 percent), and inside logs (22 percent). Available cover objects 
included rock (52 percent), coarse woody debris (7 percent), bark (11 
percent), and cow pie (i.e., manure, less than 1 percent) (p. 24). 
There may be high-elevation meadows located within the critical habitat 
units that are used by the Jemez Mountains salamander. Currently, we do 
not fully understand how salamanders utilize areas like meadows, where 
the above ground vegetation component differs from areas where 
salamanders are more commonly encountered (e.g., forested areas); 
however, salamanders have been found in high-elevation meadows. 
Salamanders are generally found in association with decaying coniferous 
logs (which they use as cover and daytime retreats), and in areas with 
abundant white fir, Ponderosa pine, and Douglas fir as the predominant 
tree species (Reagan 1967, pp. 16-17; Ramotnik 1988, p. 17). 
Salamanders use decaying coniferous logs (particularly Douglas fir 
logs) considerably more

[[Page 55603]]

often than deciduous logs, likely due to the physical features (e.g., 
blocky pieces 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 aboveground habitat and cover (Ramotnik 1988, p. 53).
    Subsurface geology and loose rocky soil structure may be an 
important attribute of underground salamander habitat (Degenhardt et 
al. 1996, p. 28). Geologic and moisture constraints likely limit the 
distribution of the species. Soil pH (acidity or alkalinity) may limit 
distribution as well. However, the composition of this subterranean 
habitat has not been fully investigated. Everett (2003) reported that 
the salamander occurred in areas where soil texture was composed of 56 
percent sandy clay loam, 36 percent clay loam, 6 percent sandy loam, 
and 2 percent silty clay loam (p. 28); the overall soil bulk density 
ranged from 0.2 to 0.98 ounces per cubic inch (oz/in3) (0.3 
to 1.7 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm3) (p. 28); and had 
average soil moisture from 4.85 to 59.7 percent (p. 28). The 
salamander's subterranean habitat appears to be deep, fractured, 
subterranean, igneous rock in areas with high soil moisture (New Mexico 
Endemic Salamander Team 2000, p. 2). Many terrestrial salamanders 
deposit eggs in well hidden sites, such as underground cavities, 
decaying logs, and moist rock crevices (Pentranka 1998, p. 6). Because 
the Jemez Mountain salamander spends the majority of its life below 
ground, eggs are probably laid and hatch underground. Although no egg 
clutches have been discovered in the wild, it is believed they are laid 
in the fractured interstices of subterranean, metamorphic rock.
    Jemez Mountain salamanders lack lungs; instead, they are cutaneous 
respirators (meaning they exchange gases, such as oxygen and carbon 
dioxide, through their skin). To support cutaneous respiration its skin 
must be moist and permeable. Jemez Mountain salamanders must address 
hydration needs above all other life-history needs. The salamander must 
obtain its water from its habitat. In addition, it has no physiological 
mechanism to stop dehydration or water loss to the environment. Based 
on this information, it is likely that substrate moisture through its 
effect on absorption and loss of water is the most important factor in 
the ecology of this species (Heatwole and Lim 1961, p. 818). We suspect 
that these components may be a main driver behind salamander 
occurrences and distribution. We are aware of two modeling efforts that 
have been initiated on the relationship of subsurface rock and soil 
components of salamander habitat that we anticipate will help inform 
our understanding of the distribution of the salamander, but these are 
not yet completed. In addition, because microclimates where conditions 
are moist and cool are important to the species, we also suspect that 
variables that contribute to or work in concert with one another to 
provide moist cool microclimates are important to the species. For 
example, shading on hills provided by topography and mosaic patterns in 
canopy closure provide shading and allow precipitation to reach the 
soil.
Status of the Species
    A complete overview of the available survey data and protocols for 
the Jemez Mountains salamander is reported in the 12-month finding for 
the salamander (75 FR 54822; September 9, 2010). 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.
    In summary, we have approximately 20 years of salamander survey 
data that provide detection information at specific survey sites for 
given points in time. The overall rangewide population size of the 
Jemez Mountains salamander is unknown because surveys tend to be 
localized (approximately 256-ft-by-256-ft areas, 200-m-by-200-m). 
Additionally, like most plethodontid salamanders, monitoring population 
size or trends of the Jemez Mountains salamander is inherently 
difficult because of the natural variation associated with the species' 
behavior (Hyde and Simons 2001, p. 624). For example, when the species 
is underground, they cannot be detected (Hyde and Simons 2001, p. 624). 
Therefore, the probability of detecting a salamander is highly variable 
and dependent upon the environmental and biological parameters that 
drive aboveground and belowground activities ((i.e., moisture, 
temperature) Hyde and Simons 2001, p. 624). Everett (2003, p. 35) noted 
that areas with high percentages of area of habitat covered by decaying 
logs, rocks, bark, moss mats, and stumps are difficult to survey and 
locate salamanders when present, and may bias the data toward lower 
percentages of area covered by decaying logs, rocks, bark, moss mats, 
and stumps. Given the known bias of detection probabilities (i.e., the 
difficulty in detecting

[[Page 55604]]

salamanders when present due to being underground, secretive, and 
sparse numbers) and the inconsistent survey effort across years, as a 
result of differences in the number of days when surveys occurred, 
differences in environmental conditions, and different survey methods 
employed, population trends and population size estimates using 
existing data cannot be made accurately.
    Despite our inability to quantify population size or trends for the 
salamander, these qualitative data (data that are observable, but not 
measurable) provide information for potential inferences. Based on 
these inferences, the persistence of the salamander may vary across the 
range of the species. For example, in some localities where the 
salamander was once considered abundant or common, the salamander is 
now rarely detected or has not been recently detected at all (New 
Mexico Heritage Program 2010a and b, spreadsheets). The number of areas 
where salamanders were once present, but have not been observed during 
more recent surveys, also appears to have increased (New Mexico 
Heritage Program 2010a and b, spreadsheets). Alternatively, there are 
two localities on the Valles Caldera National Preserve where the 
salamander continues to be relatively abundant (Redondo Border located 
in the central portion of the Valles Caldera National Preserve, and on 
a slope in the northeast portion of the Valles Caldera National 
Preserve), compared to most other recent detections at other sites. 
Still, the number of individuals found at the two above referenced 
localities in the Valle Caldera National Preserve is far less than 
historical reports from other areas. For example, 659 individual 
salamanders were captured outside the Valle Caldera National Preserve 
at one location in Sandoval County in a single year in 1970, and 394 of 
the 659 were captured in a single month (Williams 1976, p. 26). The 
maximum number of salamanders captured rangewide is 68 salamanders 
(observed in 2005). In other words, the number of salamanders observed 
during recent surveys is far less than observed in historical surveys. 
Currently, there is no known location where the number of salamanders 
observed is similar to that observed in 1970.
    Overall, the numbers of salamanders found at some of the localized 
survey areas appear to be similar from survey to survey and from year 
to year. Surveys are conducted during the period in which environmental 
conditions for salamander aboveground activity is warm and wet, which 
is typically from July through September. However, in other areas when 
surveys are conducted during optimal environmental conditions, fewer or 
no salamanders are captured, particularly along the western and 
southern sides of the range, (New Mexico Heritage Program 2010a and b, 
spreadsheets). An assessment of population trends using these data 
would not be appropriate because estimates of detection probabilities 
were not collected, and repeated surveys within the same year were not 
regularly conducted. Without specifically accounting for detection 
probabilities using repeated survey techniques, it is unknown whether a 
trend in population is an actual trend or is due to a greater or lesser 
proportion of salamanders present being above ground or below ground, 
which is driven by environmental conditions such as temperature and 
moisture. For example, if one year a small proportion of a population 
was above ground and in the next year a large proportion of the 
population was above ground, it could be interpreted that the number of 
individuals increased at that site; however, actual numbers could have 
been unchanged. We have not fully explored future studies that could 
make use of the existing data; however, we expect that detecting 
overall trends will be difficult for this species, given data 
limitations, the cost of comprehensive surveys and protocols to account 
for natural, annual, and spatial variation, and the long timeframe 
needed to detect trends.
    In summary, the available data cannot be used to estimate 
population size or trends in the rangewide abundance of the salamander. 
Although we lack specific long-term population and trend information, 
available data and qualitative observations of salamanders at surveyed 
sites during wet environmental conditions indicate that salamanders are 
now more difficult to find during most surveys than they were 20 years 
ago and earlier, and the number of areas with surveys resulting in no 
salamander detections is increasing. On this basis, which is the best 
available scientific information, we conclude that the Jemez Mountains 
salamander is in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    We requested written comments from the public on the proposed rule 
during two comment periods. The first comment period associated with 
the publication of the proposed rule opened on September 12, 2012 (77 
FR 56482), and closed on November 13, 2012. We also requested comments 
during a period that opened on February 12, 2013 (78 FR 9876), and 
closed on March 14, 2013. We also contacted appropriate Federal and 
State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. A 
newspaper notice inviting general public comment was published in the 
Los Alamos Monitor. We did not receive any requests for a public 
hearing.
    During the first comment period, we received nine comment letters 
addressing the proposed listing of the Jemez Mountains salamander with 
endangered status and the proposed critical habitat designation. During 
the second comment period, we received 11 comment letters addressing 
the proposed listing of the Jemez Mountains salamander, the proposed 
critical habitat designation, the draft environmental assessment or the 
draft economic analysis. All substantive information provided during 
comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final 
determination or addressed below.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our peer review policy published on July 1, 1994 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinion from seven knowledgeable 
individuals with scientific expertise that included familiarity with 
the species, the geographic region in which the species occurs, and 
conservation biology principles. We received responses from three of 
the seven peer reviewers.
    We reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for 
substantive issues and new information regarding the listing of Jemez 
Mountains salamander. All three peer reviewers agreed that the 
information presented in the proposed rule to list the Jemez Mountains 
salamander as an endangered species is scientifically sound and well 
researched; that the assumptions, analyses, and conclusions are well 
reasoned; and that the information is well formulated and the risks or 
threats to the species are not undervalued. The peer reviewers provided 
clarifications and suggestions to improve the final rules to list the 
Jemez Mountains salamander as endangered and to designate critical 
habitat. Peer reviewer comments specifically regarding the listing of 
the Jemez Mountains salamander are addressed in the following summary 
and incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.

[[Page 55605]]

Biology and Background Section
    (1) Comment: Two peer reviewers and some commenters thought 
additional information regarding our understanding of the subsurface 
rock and soil components of salamander habitat should be included in 
the habitat section. One commenter stated that some factors, including 
soil pH and soil bulk density, are ignored or too readily dismissed.
    Our Response: Subsurface geology and loose rocky soil structure may 
be an important attribute of salamander habitat (Degenhardt et al. 
1996, p. 28). However, the composition of this belowground habitat has 
not been fully investigated, although soils comprised of pumice or tuft 
generally are not suitable. The salamander's belowground habitat 
appears to be deep, fractured, subterranean, igneous rock in areas with 
high soil moisture (New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 2000, p. 2). 
Everett (2003) reported that the salamander occurred in areas where 
soil texture was composed of 56 percent sandy clay loam, 36 percent 
clay loam, 6 percent sandy loam, and 2 percent silty clay loam (p. 28); 
the overall soil bulk density ranged from 0.2 to 0.98 ounces per cubic 
inch (oz/in\3\) (0.3 to 1.7 grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm\3\) (p. 
28); and had average soil moisture from 4.85 to 59.7 percent (p. 28). 
Sites with salamanders had a soil pH of 6.6 ( 0.08) and 
sites without salamanders had a soil pH of 6.2 ( 0.06) 
(Ramotnik 1988, pp. 24-25). We have updated the relevant sections to 
better describe our current understanding of Jemez Mountains salamander 
subsurface rock and soil components. We have clarified the language in 
section ``Biology'' above, and the ``Fire Exclusion, Suppression, and 
Severe Wildland Fires'' section below. We are not aware of any reliable 
information that is currently available to us on these topics that was 
not considered in this determination process.
Threats
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer did not agree with the conclusion 
that fire suppression actions, which include the use of fire 
retardants, water dropping, backfiring, and fire line construction, are 
not a threat to the salamander.
    Our Response: The best commercial and scientific information 
available at this time, including the Fire Retardant Biological 
Assessment submitted by the USFS (2011, entire), does not evaluate 
impacts to salamanders or their habitat from fire suppression actions. 
Fire suppression actions, including fire retardants, water dropping, 
backfiring, and fire line construction, may both protect and negatively 
impact salamanders and their habitat. The effects from fire suppression 
on the Jemez Mountains salamander or its habitat are unknown. Fire 
retardants may affect individual salamanders and their habitat, but 
based the best available scientific and commercial data does not 
indicate that it is a threat to the species as a whole.
    (3) Comment: Two peer reviewers commented on chemical use in 
salamander habitat. One stated that chemical use may constitute a 
significant threat to the salamander, implied that the lack of 
information does not mean that the threat does not affect salamanders, 
and suggested that effects that some chemicals used may have on the 
salamander or its habitat should be immediately studied. The other peer 
reviewer thought insecticides used to control western spruce budworm 
(Choristoneura occidentalis) and bark beetles (Dendroctonus spp., Ips 
spp.) should be considered in more detail.
    Our Response: We agree with the reviewers that lack of information 
about impacts to the species does not mean there are no impacts. 
However, the best available scientific and commercial data does not 
support the claim that chemical use (including fire retardant chemical) 
is currently a threat to the species. Currently, we have no information 
on the effects of chemical impacts on salamanders. We are not aware of 
any broad-scale use of insecticides in salamander habitat in the past, 
which allow us to consider in more detail. Further, we are not aware of 
any broad-scale use of insecticides in salamander habitat or proposed 
for the future, and have no reason to believe that this could be a 
threat in the foreseeable future. The best available scientific data 
does not indicate that chemical use is a threat to the salamander.
    (4) Comment: The data do not seem strong enough to conclude that 
changes in vegetative components alone constitute a threat.
    Our Response: We consider existing and ongoing changes in 
vegetation composition and structure to be a threat to the salamander 
because it is interrelated to changes in fire regimes. In order to 
reduce the risk of large-scale stand-replacing wildfire, management 
actions to change the current forest conditions are needed.
    (5) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that unregulated collection 
of the Jemez Mountains salamander may be more significant than 
credited, while another stated that the current absence of salamanders 
at the type locality is disturbing, yet does not prove that 
overcollecting is the cause of the decline or disappearance of 
salamanders in specific areas. A commenter stated that past collection 
was dismissed too readily. The USFS commented that it was not clear if 
collections were from the same sites that are used as reference sites 
for salamander populations, but that historical collections could still 
be influencing salamander populations because of relatively low 
fecundity.
    Our Response: We believe that the majority of collections were made 
at and around the general area located on the southwest portion of the 
range of the salamander, south of New Mexico Highway 4. Based on the 
number of specimens collected from this area, we believe that the 
impact from collections here was significant and was no doubt a 
contributing factor in the lack of persistence of the salamander there. 
We have reviewed the Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, 
Scientific, or Educational Purposes in this final rule, below, and made 
clarifications based on the information available; in some cases, the 
source material was not clear. As explained in the Overutilization for 
Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes, 
collection of the species is regulated by several State and Federal 
regulations, and illegal collection is not known or thought to be high. 
Therefore, the best available scientific and commercial data does not 
indicate that collection is presently an ongoing or future threat.
    (6) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that increased coordination 
efforts on the timing and placement of salvage logging operations could 
mitigate the threats posed by salvage logging. Santa Clara Pueblo 
stated that salvage logging after wildfire can help alleviate the 
hydrophobicity (repelling the absorption of water) of soils through 
disturbance of the soils in pulling the salvage logs to a landing area, 
and the Service should be careful not to make too sweeping a statement 
about the threats posed by salvage logging. Guidelines could be 
developed for managing salvage logging that would also benefit the 
salamander. The USFS commented that there are many variables to 
consider regarding salvage logging, and some measures could be taken 
that include salvage logging in order to reduce the risk of re-burning 
in areas that have been burned with wildfire.
    Our Response: We agree that some impacts resulting from salvage 
logging in salamander habitat could be abated through best management 
practices, and there may be certain management

[[Page 55606]]

actions regarding some salvage logging that could be of potential 
benefit to the Jemez Mountains salamander. We can provide technical 
assistance to develop best management practices with those engaged in 
salvage logging or timber harvesting in areas that may affect the 
salamander or its habitat. Furthermore, best management practices for 
minimizing or eliminating adverse effects to the salamander or its 
habitat resulting from actions such as salvage logging or timber 
harvesting that are funded, authorized, or carried out by Federal 
agencies can be developed through section 7 consultation with the 
Service.
    (7) Comment: One peer reviewer stated the assumption that an 
increase in the number of small-diameter trees would result in 
increased water demand required for evapotranspiration should be 
supported with a citation, or if the situation is more complex, further 
explanation of the complexities and uncertainties should be made.
    Our Response: We clarified timber harvest actions and included 
additional information regarding some timber harvest actions and soil 
water (moisture) in this final rule under the ``Forest Silvicultural 
Practices'' section under Factor A. The Present or Threatened 
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range, 
below. The dynamic between tree density, thinning, and soil water is a 
key ecological process, which is relevant not only to restoration 
efforts, but also to salamander physiology. We strongly support 
research in this area in the Jemez Mountains. We also agree that some 
impacts resulting from timber harvest and thinning in salamander 
habitat could be abated through best management practices and could 
also benefit the salamander. We look forward to developing best 
management practices with those potentially engaged in timber 
harvesting in areas that may affect the salamander or its habitat. 
Furthermore, best management practices for minimizing or eliminating 
adverse effects to the salamander or its habitat resulting from actions 
such as timber harvesting that are funded, authorized, or carried out 
by Federal agencies can be developed through section 7 consultation 
with the Service.

Comments from the U.S. Forest Service

    (8) Comment: The USFS commented that there are many variables to 
consider regarding salvage logging, and some measures could be taken 
that include salvage logging that reduces the risk of re-burning in 
areas that have been burned with wildfire.
    Our Response: See our response to Comment 6, above.
    (9) Comment: The USFS commented that there are still many unknowns, 
which lead to numerous assumptions made throughout the document and 
provide a clear indication that sufficient data does not exist to 
understand this species' status and needs. A public commenter stated 
the scientific record accumulated to date is not sufficiently robust to 
warrant further regulatory action. Additional data should be collected 
before listing the species as endangered. The Service should withdraw 
the proposal to list the Jemez Mountains salamander as endangered 
because of lack of sound scientific evidence. The proposed rule is 
flawed because it relies too much on speculation and assumption rather 
than the best scientific information available as required.
    Our Response: As required by the Act, we based our proposal and 
this final rule on the best available scientific and commercial data. 
We requested review from seven scientific experts of our technical 
assumptions, analysis, adherence to regulations, and whether or not we 
had used the best available information. We received reviews from 
three, all three peer reviewers confirmed that the information 
contained within this rule is scientifically sound, based on a 
combination of reasonable facts, assumptions, and conclusions, and the 
science is well considered. We requested new information during the 
open public comment period and reviewed information in our files and 
other available published and unpublished information, and we consulted 
with recognized species experts and other Federal, State, and tribal 
agencies. We must make this determination on the basis of the best 
scientific and commercial information available at this time, and we 
may not delay our decision until more information about the species and 
its habitat are available. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. 
Babbitt, 215 F.3d 58 (DC Cir. 2000).
    (10) Comment: In light of the unknowns, the number of assumptions 
described in the proposed rule, and the difficulty in detecting the 
salamander, it does not appear that there is evidence to support the 
conclusion that this species is at risk of extinction (i.e., 
endangered) or likely to become endangered throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future (i.e., 
threatened).
    Our Response: Please see Our Response to Comment 9 above. We have 
found that the Jemez Mountains salamander is presently in danger of 
extinction throughout all of its range based on the severity of threats 
currently affecting the salamander. The threats are both current and 
expected to continue in the future, and are significant in that they 
limit all behavioral and physiological functions, including breathing, 
feeding, and reproduction and reproductive success, and extend across 
the entire range of the species (For full discussion, see Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species and Determination sections, below).
    (11) Comment: The proposed rule vastly increases the area of 
potential salamander habitat through loose description of the habitat 
and biology. As written, the proposed rule would suggest any mixed 
conifer, Ponderosa pine, spruce, and aspen, essentially all forested 
lands and meadows between 7,200 and 9,500 ft (2,194 to 2,895 m) 
elevation in the Jemez Mountains, to be salamander habitat. Clearly, 
that is not the case and has not been the view of the New Mexico 
Endemic Salamander Team Cooperative Management Plan as evident from the 
conservation area identified in the 2000 Cooperative Management Plan.
    Our Response: It is unclear what the commenter is referring to in 
regard to an increase in the area of potential salamander habitat. We 
assume they are referring to the area of salamander habitat in the New 
Mexico Endemic Salamander Team Cooperative Management Plan, but that 
was not specified. The Service recognizes there are differences in the 
total areas identified in the New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 
Cooperative Management Plan and the proposed listing rule. This 
difference is due to the different purposes of identifying habitat. The 
areas identified by the New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team in the 
Cooperative Management Plan are areas only on National Forest lands 
that were delineated ``by combining distribution data with on-the-
ground knowledge of salamander natural history and habitat potentials'' 
(New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 2000, p. 13) with the intended 
purpose of protecting areas known to be important to the species based 
on occupancy from actions that might occur there. The Cooperative 
Management Plan identified 146,890 acres (ac) (59,444 hectares (ha)) of 
salamander habitat on the Santa Fe National Forest for management and 
conservation of the species (New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 2000, 
p. 14). During our process of determining critical habitat for the 
Jemez Mountains salamander (77 FR 56482 September 12, 2012; 78 FR 9876

[[Page 55607]]

February 12, 2013), we proposed designating 56,897 ac (23,025 ha) on 
USFS lands on which are found those physical or biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species and which may require 
special management considerations or protections. However, the 
occupancy status of salamander habitat outside of the proposed critical 
habitat boundaries is not fully determined and may be larger than the 
area initially identified in the Cooperative Management Plan.
    (12) Comment: With the exception of the discussion of fire 
interval, the proposed rule makes little distinction between dry and 
wet mixed conifer. Therefore, it is unclear how the USFS would manage 
mixed conifer stands as described in the proposed rule.
    Our Response: The proposed rule and this final rule are not 
intended to prescribe to agencies how to specifically manage any forest 
type under their purview. However, we are interested in working with 
land managers to find solutions to minimize adverse effects to 
threatened or endangered species and their habitat while conducting 
management actions. In addition, we are interested in collaborating on 
actions that will help the salamander recover to the point where it is 
no longer considered to be endangered or threatened.
    (13) Comment: The Service refers to the number of surveys that 
resulted in no salamanders being found as the main evidence that the 
species is in decline. Yet the USFS continues to find salamanders even 
during poor survey conditions. Recent salamander detection results 
could be influenced from historical overcollection, previous survey 
efforts, and drought with low precipitation during the monsoon season. 
Because of the multiple variables that influence salamander detections, 
it is unclear how the Service can determine that salamander populations 
are declining due to current management while new salamander locations 
are detected annually (four in 2011 and three in 2012).
    Our Response: The commenter does not identify a specific survey 
report for us to reference. We have requested the data, but at the time 
of this final rule, we have not received the information. However, in 
the Status of the Species section of this final rule, below, we state 
that, despite our inability to quantify population size or trends for 
the salamander, the qualitative data (data that are observable, but not 
measurable) provide information for potential inferences. Based on 
these inferences, we believe that the persistence of the salamander may 
vary across the range of the species. For example, in some localities 
where the salamander was once considered abundant or common, the 
salamander is now rarely detected or has not been recently detected at 
all (New Mexico Heritage Program 2010a and b, spreadsheets). The number 
of areas where salamanders were once present, but have not been 
observed during more recent surveys, has also increased (New Mexico 
Heritage Program 2010a and b, spreadsheets).
    Alternatively, there are two localities on the Valles Caldera 
National Preserve where the salamander continues to be relatively 
abundant (e.g., approximately 30 salamanders observed in a day each at 
Redondo Border located in the central portion of the Valles Caldera 
National Preserve and on a slope in the northeast portion of the Valles 
Caldera National Preserve compared to most other recent detections 
throughout its range. Still, the number of individuals recently found 
at the two localities on the Valles Caldera National Preserve is far 
less than other historical records throughout the species range. For 
example, in northeastern Sandoval County where the species was first 
659 individual Jemez Mountain salamanders were captured in a single 
year in 1970, 394 of which were captured in a single month (Williams 
1976, p. 26). Currently, there is no known location where the number of 
salamanders observed is similar to that observed in 1970. Finally, all 
three peer reviewers confirmed that the information contained within 
this rule is scientifically sound, based on a combination of reasonable 
facts, assumptions, and conclusions. One peer reviewer specifically 
stated that assumptions made in the section about population abundances 
and trends are generally typical for this type of salamander, that the 
risks or threats to the species are not undervalued, and if the threats 
are not managed, then the probability for a continued downward trend of 
this animal with extinction an eventual outcome is foreseeable.
    (14) Comment: Peer reviewers of the proposed rule should include 
impartial experts in the fields of herpetology, fire ecology, and 
forest ecology specific to the southwest to evaluate the multitude of 
assumptions.
    Our Response: Four of the seven peer reviewers we requested 
information from have expertise in the fields of herpetology, 
plethodontid salamander biology, fire ecology, and forest ecology.
    (15) Comment: The use of the Wyman and Hawksley-Lescault (1987) 
citation does not appear applicable to changes in soil pH from 
wildfire.
    Our Response: The purpose of this citation is to demonstrate that 
changes in soil pH could be an important factor in plethodontid 
salamander biology because changes in pH can affect their physiology. 
We have clarified the language of this final rule in section 
``Biology'' above, and ``Fire Exclusion, Suppression, and Severe 
Wildland Fires'' below.
    (16) Comment: The example for modifying fire management techniques 
to include not using flares to ignite large decaying logs or modifying 
chemical use in salamander habitat would eliminate the use of 
prescribed fire in salamander habitat. Almost all ignitions require the 
use of chemicals, whether petroleum fuels in drip torches, or potassium 
permanganate in balls dropped from a helicopter. These chemicals are 
mostly consumed in the process of getting fire on the ground and are 
unlikely to leave residue that could affect the salamander.
    Our Response: We are not suggesting that prescribed fire be 
eliminated in salamander habitat or that fire management techniques be 
modified in a way that would prevent the use of prescribed fire in 
salamander habitat. Prescribed fire is clearly a necessary tool for 
managing forests in the Jemez Mountains and in salamander habitat. 
Furthermore, some activities, such as prescribed fire, can benefit the 
salamander and its habitat.
    (17) Comment: The Service issued a biological opinion for the Fire 
Retardant Biological Assessment prepared by the USFS and should have 
all relevant information in their project record concerning whether 
chemicals in fire retardants or foams are a threat to the salamander.
    Our Response: We have reviewed the administrative record for the 
Fire Retardant consultation between the USFS and the Service and did 
not find information to assess whether fire retardants or foams 
impacted the salamander. Measures were put in place to avoid aquatic 
amphibians, but no analyses were done for any terrestrial amphibian.
    (18) Comment: The proposed rule gives the widening of State Highway 
126 as an example of where the Conservation Agreement failed, yet 
recommendations from the New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team were 
considered and efforts were taken to minimize effects to the Jemez 
Mountains salamander in that area, even though the Federal Highway 
Administration undertook the project. The proposed rule neglects to 
mention the coordination between the New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 
and the USFS on projects since the signing

[[Page 55608]]

of the agreement, even after the agreement expired in 2010.
    Our Response: In regard to the realignment of Highway 126, action 
agencies included the Federal Highway Administration and the USFS. 
While the project was discussed with the New Mexico Endemic Salamander 
Team, and some efforts were made (e.g., an experimental salvage and 
relocation of Jemez Mountains salamanders from the footprint of the 
realignment and felling trees as future potential cover objects in 
areas adjacent to the road), the project still resulted in a large 
impact (permanent and complete fragmentation of the population and 
destruction of habitat) in a small area with relatively moderate 
salamander densities. We analyzed the adequacy of existing conservation 
measures at removing or reducing threats to the salamander across the 
range of the species such that listing the salamander under the Act is 
not warranted, and found that existing conservation measures are not 
adequate. The Highway 126 project is an example of how conservation 
measures as provided by the Cooperative Management Plan are inadequate 
to protect the salamander and its habitat. Further, the Cooperative 
Management Plan and the now expired Conservation Agreement only applied 
to a portion of the range of the salamander (some portions of USFS 
lands), applied to management actions that the USFS might take, does 
not specifically address significant threats (e.g., severe wildland 
fire, climate change) or actions that could be threats if plans to 
minimize impacts to the salamander are not considered (e.g., forest 
management such as thinning, prescribed fire), and do not provide 
specific mechanisms to protect the species (only that the New Mexico 
Endemic Salamander Team would provide discretionary recommendations). 
The Cooperative Management Plan and the expired Conservation Agreement 
are considered inadequate for providing protection to the salamander or 
alleviating threats to the salamander or its habitat.

Comment From Other Federal Agencies

    (19) Comment: A new conservation plan should be created in lieu of 
listing the salamander as an endangered species.
    Our Response: The Act does not provide authority to the Service to 
delay listing in order to wait for future, speculative conservation 
plans to be developed and implemented.

Comments From the New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA)

    (20) Comment: Listing the Jemez Mountains salamander will be 
counter-productive to solving the problem of poor watershed health in 
the Jemez Mountains and will slow the pace of ongoing forest 
restoration work. In addition, listing could alter the State's ability 
to acquire matching funds.
    Our Response: Listing the Jemez Mountains salamander does not 
preclude forest restoration or management practices, including, but not 
limited to, prescribed fire and thinning treatments, restoration of the 
frequency and spatial extent of such disturbances as regeneration 
treatments, and implementation of prescribed natural fire management 
plans where feasible. We consider use of such treatments to be 
compatible with the ecosystem management of habitat mosaics and the 
best way to reduce the threats of catastrophic wildfire to Jemez 
Mountains salamander and provide protection for the species. In 
addition, listing the Jemez Mountains salamander does not preclude 
adaptive management or the incorporation of new information on the 
interaction between natural disturbance events and forest ecology. We 
continue to support sound ecosystem management and the maintenance of 
biodiversity, and we will fully support land management agencies in 
addressing the management of fire to protect and enhance natural 
resources under their stewardship.
    (21) Comment: The Service should partner with ongoing efforts, such 
as the Southwest Jemez Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration 
Project, to effectively improve the watershed health of the Jemez 
Mountains, thus benefiting the salamander.
    Our Response: The Service recognizes the importance of forming and 
supporting partnerships to achieve mutually identified goals and 
objectives, and agrees that strong partnerships and collaborations are 
necessary for the restoration and conservation of our natural 
resources. We appreciate the ongoing efforts and collaborations with 
our existing partners, including members of the Southwest Jemez 
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Project, encourage our 
partners to work with us to incorporate specific goals and objectives 
for the protection of the Jemez Mountains salamander and its habitat, 
and commit to long-term monitoring, without which it is difficult to 
evaluate the effectiveness of conservation measures intended to benefit 
salamander. We also look forward to the establishment of new 
partnerships to improve conservation.
    (22) Comment: The Service should withdraw its proposal to list the 
Jemez Mountains salamander as an endangered species, because critical 
watershed restoration efforts would continue and these efforts could 
continue without the burdensome regulations associated with the Act.
    Our Response: Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations 
(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. Listing actions may 
be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination. The purpose of the Act is to protect and recover imperiled 
species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The regulatory 
requirements under the Act were determined by Congress to ensure that 
otherwise lawful actions that affect species listed under the Act are 
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of those listed 
species. The Service will work with Federal agencies during 
consultation, when required, to develop watershed restoration efforts. 
The Service can provide technical assistance to non-Federal projects to 
develop best management practices or alternatives.

Comments From the Santa Clara Pueblo

    (23) Comment: Santa Clara Pueblo is very interested in restoring, 
promoting, and sustaining healthy forest lands, which will benefit the 
Jemez Mountains salamander.
    Our Response: The Service appreciates comments received from Santa 
Clara Pueblo, welcomes continued input on all aspects of restoring, 
promoting, and sustaining healthy forest lands in the Jemez Mountains, 
and will continue to be available to provide technical assistance as 
may be requested by the tribe.
    (24) Comment: Santa Clara Pueblo stated that salvage logging after 
wildfire can help alleviate soils repelling water through disturbance 
of the soils resulting from pulling the salvage logs to a landing area, 
and the Service

[[Page 55609]]

should be careful not to draw the wrong conclusion about the threats 
posed by salvage logging. Guidelines could be developed for managing 
coarse woody debris following wildfire that include some salvage 
logging that would also benefit the salamander.
    Our Response: See our response to Comment 6 under Comments from 
Peer Reviewers, above.
    (25) Comment: Santa Clara Pueblo commented that responsible timber 
harvesting can increase available soil moisture because transpiration 
of vegetation (the process by which plants release moisture into the 
air) is decreased and more soil moisture becomes available for residual 
plant growth (and the salamander). Although it is true that reduced 
shading could increase surface temperatures, that would have little 
effect at the root level or below where the salamander primarily 
resides.
    Our Response: In the ``Forest Composition and Structure 
Conversions'' section of this final rule, the Service has clarified how 
the changes in forest composition and structure impacts the salamander 
in its habitat.

Public Comments

    (26) Comment: A public commenter stated that, before the proposed 
rule is made final, agencies should jointly review the Memorandum of 
Agreement to determine whether it can be updated or revised in a way 
that would continue to protect the salamander without allowing it to be 
listed.
    Our Response: It is unclear to what Memorandum of Agreement the 
commenter is referring. We are assuming the commenter is referring to 
the New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team Cooperative Management Plan. See 
our response to Comment 11 under Comments From the U.S. Forest Service.
    (27) Comment: Another commenter could not determine from the text 
if different logging practices were distinguished, and believe that 
clear-cut logging would be detrimental to the salamander and its 
habitat, but that other commercial logging could be conducted in a way 
that is not. The threat from logging probably is real, but comes from 
the disruption of the vertical underground passages more than from tree 
removal. The logging threat is minimal, because industry barely exists 
in the area.
    Our Response: As stated in our proposed rule and this final rule, 
clear-cutting degrades forest floor microhabitats for salamanders by 
eliminating shading and leaf litter, increasing soil surface 
temperature, and reducing moisture (Petranka 1998, p. 16). Significant 
differences in habitat features (soil pH, litter depth, and log size) 
were reported between the logged and unlogged sites (Ramotnik 1986, p. 
8). 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). The best available scientific and commercial 
data does not indicate that there is an impact to vertical underground 
passages.
    (28) Comment: A public commenter stated that the scientific record 
accumulated to date is not sufficiently robust to warrant further 
regulatory action. Additional data should be collected before listing 
the species as endangered. The Service should withdraw the proposal to 
list the Jemez Mountains salamander as endangered because of lack of 
sound scientific evidence. The proposed rule is flawed because it 
relies too much on speculation and assumption rather than the best 
scientific information available as required.
    Our Response: See our response to Comment 9 under Comments From 
U.S. Forest Service, above.
    (29) Comment: Listing the Jemez Mountains salamander may have the 
unintended consequences of undermining efforts to reduce the identified 
principal threat to the salamander, the risk of catastrophic wildfire. 
Listing the Jemez Mountains salamander as an endangered species may 
further slow efforts of the Southwest Jemez Mountains Collaborative 
Forest Landscape Restoration project because of the additional 
regulatory requirement for section 7 consultation.
    Our Response: Listing of the Jemez Mountains salamander does not 
preclude the proactive treatments necessary to reduce the risk of 
catastrophic fire or managing forests to restore them to old growth 
conditions. We recognize that vegetative structural and landscape 
changes may require proactive management to restore an appropriate 
distribution of age classes, control regeneration densities, and 
reintroduce some measure of natural disturbance processes such as fire 
events, and will need adaptive management and the incorporation of new 
information as it becomes available. We continue to support sound 
ecosystem management, and we will fully support land management 
agencies in addressing the management of fire to protect and enhance 
natural resources under their stewardship. We recognize the importance 
of implementing restoration projects such as the Southwest Jemez 
Mountains Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration project. We do not 
anticipate significant delays resulting from consultation, as there is 
overlap between salamander habitat and Mexican spotted owl habitat, 
which will also require consultation under section 7. Nonetheless, we 
will work to minimize any potential additional delays that may result 
from the requirement for consultation under section 7.
    (30) Comment: No evidence is presented that time above ground is 
necessary for the salamander life cycle. Fallen logs are considered 
important in the rule; however, fallen logs only seem to be convenient 
places searched by the biologists when looking for the salamander 
rather than places important to the salamander's life cycle.
    Our Response: Aboveground surface activity during wet surface 
conditions is a documented characteristic of the natural history of the 
Jemez Mountains salamander. Also, because stomach contents consist 
primarily of aboveground, ground-dwelling invertebrates, and 
plethodontid salamanders store fat reserves in their tails for 
energetic use when foraging opportunities are reduced or do not exist 
(e.g., underground), we conclude that aboveground activity is important 
for feeding. Additionally, based on reproductive studies (see Biology 
section of this rule), this species mates in July and August, which 
coincides with the salamander's aboveground activity period. We, 
therefore, conclude that time aboveground is necessary for foraging and 
mating. Cover objects, including logs, are used by salamanders when 
aboveground. As explained in the proposed and final rules, these cover 
objects provide shelter and high moisture retreats while salamanders 
are aboveground and are necessary for hydration, because overall 
surface activity usually dehydrates animals. In addition, fallen logs 
may be relatively more important to the species than rocks because they 
are able to hold moisture for longer periods, and can be a buffer to 
the increased temperatures resulting from habitat alterations or 
climate change.
    (31) Comment: Thinning to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire 
could impact the vertical underground passages through use of 
machinery. Forest restoration treatments that minimize impacts and 
maximize benefits to the salamander need to be tested. The Service's 
call for research

[[Page 55610]]

into thinning techniques and their effects on the salamander is 
strongly endorsed.
    Our Response: We agree that methods for forest restoration 
treatments that have the potential to significantly affect the 
salamander and its habitat should be tested to identify options that 
could minimize impacts and maximize benefits to the salamander. The 
Service is collaborating with the USFS, The Nature Conservancy, NMDGF, 
and others on a project to measure effects of prescribed fire to large 
downed log habitat components. We believe collaborations such as this 
will provide information on maintaining important salamander habitat 
features while conducting forest restoration.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    During the open comment periods, we were asked to add information 
to provide clarifications in some areas. We added clarifying language 
regarding our understanding of habitat variables including subsurface 
rock and geology; hillshading; canopy closure as it relates to 
microclimates; population connectivity; the disease Ranavirus; the 
current Forest Planning Rule; and timber harvest and soil moisture 
relationships. Some information we had not previously considered was 
provided by the USFS. This additional information did not alter our 
threats assessment.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
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. Listing actions may 
be warranted based on any of the above threat factors, singly or in 
combination. Each of these factors is discussed below.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    The principal threats to the habitat of the Jemez Mountains 
salamander include historical fire exclusion (the act of preventing 
fire) and suppression (the act of putting out fire) and severe wildland 
fires; forest composition and structure conversions; post-fire 
rehabilitation; forest and fire management; roads, trails, and habitat 
fragmentation; and recreation.
Fire Exclusion, Suppression, and Severe Wildland Fires
    In the Jemez Mountains, over 100 years of fire suppression and fire 
exclusion (along with livestock grazing and other stressors) have 
altered forest composition and structure, and increased the threat of 
wildfire in Ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer 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 that the salamander coexisted with historical fire 
regimes. Frequent, low-intensity surface fires; and patchy, small-scale 
(hundreds of acres instead of thousands of acres), high-intensity fires 
in the Jemez Mountains historically maintained salamander habitat. 
These fires spread widely through grassy understory fuels, or erupted 
on very small scales (a couple of hundred acres compared to several 
hundreds or thousands of acres). 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 burned on average 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 historical 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 historical 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 historical fire patterns were interrupted in the late 1800s 
through the elimination of fine fuels, as a result of livestock 
overgrazing and historical 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, past fire exclusion 
activities 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 (USFS 
2009a, 2009b).
    In recent years, prescribed fire at Valles Caldera National 
Preserve 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) because of concern for severe wildland fires to occur (Parmenter 
2009, cited in Service 2010). The planned Scooter Peak prescribed burn 
between the Valles Caldera National Preserve and Bandelier National 
Monument is a fuel-reduction project in occupied salamander habitat, 
but is small in scale (approximately 960 ac (390 ha)) (ENTRIX 2009, p. 
2). Although future thinning of secondary growth may partially reduce 
the risk of severe wildland fires in areas, these efforts are not 
likely at a sufficient geographical 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 have 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). Between 1995 and 2010, 
severe wildland fires have

[[Page 55611]]

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).
    In 2011, the Las Conchas Fire burned 150,590 ac (60,942 ha) in the 
Jemez Mountains, and, until the 2012 Whitewater Complex Fire in 
southwestern New Mexico, Las Conchas was New Mexico's largest wildfire 
to date (USFS 2011a, p. 1). The Las Conchas Fire burned approximately 
17,780 ac (7,195 ha) of modeled or known salamander habitat in the 
east, south, and southeastern part of its range. In the eastern portion 
of the salamander's range, the Thompson Ridge Fire burned a total of 
23,965 ac (9,698 ha) in 2013. This demonstrates that the majority of 
salamander habitat has either recently burned with uncharacteristic 
wildfire or that the threat of severe wildland fires to salamander 
habitat remains high, due to 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). The canyon topography in the western portion of the 
salamander's range aligns with south winds and steep slopes, making 
this area highly susceptible to crown fire (USFS 2009a, pp. 24-25). 
Moreover, we found that the risk of burning is not eliminated following 
severe wildfires. Some areas that previously burned during the 2000 
Cerro Grande Fire burned again during the 2011 Las Conchas Fire burning 
the remaining forested mosaic areas and dead trees left after the Cerro 
Grande Fire.
    Increases in soil and microhabitat (immediate localized environment 
that has a unique set of ecological conditions within a larger habitat) 
temperatures, which generally increase with increasing burn severity, 
can have profound effects on salamander behavior and physiology and 
can, therefore, influence their ability to persist subsequent to severe 
wildland fires. Following the Cerro Grande Fire, soil temperatures were 
recorded under potential salamander cover objects in geographic 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 (the temperature that causes death) (Spotila 1972, p. 
97; Cummer and Painter 2007, pp. 28-31). Because widespread dry 
conditions are an important factor contributing to the occurrence of 
severe wildfire, when severe wildfire occurs, most salamanders are 
likely protected in subterranean habitat and are not killed directly 
from wildfire. However, even in moderate and high-severity burned areas 
where fires did not result in the death of salamanders, the 
microhabitat conditions, such as those resulting from the Cerro Grande 
Wildfire, would limit the timing and duration that the salamanders 
could be active above ground (feeding and mating). Moreover, elevated 
temperatures lead to increases in oxygen consumption, heart rate, and 
metabolic rate, resulting in decreased body water (the percentage of 
water in the body) 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, below.
    As discussed in the Biology section above, soil pH may affect 
salamanders. Severe wildland fires typically increase soil pH, which 
could affect the salamander. Changes in soil pH following wildfire 
could impact the salamander, either by making the habitat less 
suitable, or through physiological stress. The existing risk of 
wildfire on the Valles Caldera National Preserve and surrounding areas, 
including the Santa Fe National Forest, is uncharacteristically high 
and is a significant departure from historical conditions over 100 
years ago (Valles Caldera National Preserve 2010, p. 3.1; Allen 1989, 
pp. ii-346; 2001, pp. 1-10). 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, Pub. L. 106-393). The subsequent Omnibus Public 
Land Management Act, also called the ``Forest Landscape Restoration 
Act'' (Title IV, Pub. L. 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 and partners prepared the Southwest Jemez Mountains Landscape 
Assessment designed to reduce the threat of severe wildland fire in the 
western and southern part of the salamander's range over the next 10 
years (USFS 2009, p. 2).
    In 2011, this Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration project 
was selected and is eligible for up to $4 million per year to restore 
approximately 210,000 ac (85,000 ha) of forest in the southwestern 
Jemez Mountains (USFS 2011b, pp. 1-2), but a lack of matching funds may 
limit the geographical extent of this project. Moreover, this project 
will not effectively address the short-term risk of severe wildland 
fire to the species because treatments are anticipated to be 
implemented slowly, over the next decade or more. Finally, it is 
unknown whether the proposed treatments will effectively reduce the 
risk of severe wildfire to the salamander or its habitat without 
causing additional harm to the species, because measures to minimize 
impacts will be experimental and have not yet been developed. We 
believe that this risk of wildfire is one of the most significant 
threats facing this species, and projects attempting to reduce the 
threat of wildland fire will need to be implemented over a large part 
of the landscape before significant risk reduction for the salamander 
is achieved. For these reasons, we conclude that the overall risk of 
severe wildland fire will not be significantly reduced or eliminated on 
USFS lands, National Park Service lands, the Valles Caldera National 
Preserve, or surrounding lands in the 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, and 
reduced soil porosity. It also results in short-term creation of 
hydrophobic (water-repelling) soils because the burning of the leaf 
litter, the intensity and speed of the fire and the soil type affect 
the ability of soils to absorb water. These and other effects limit the 
amount of available aboveground habitat, and the timing and duration 
when salamanders can be active above ground, which negatively impacts 
salamander behavior (e.g., movement to water balance, foraging, and 
mating) and physiology (e.g., increased dehydration, heart rate and 
oxygen consumption, and increased

[[Page 55612]]

energy demands). These negative impacts are greater for hatchlings and 
juvenile salamanders because, relative to their body mass size, they 
have a greater skin surface area than larger salamanders, and thus have 
greater rates of water and gas exchange over their skin surface. 
Survivorship of hatchlings and juveniles is likely reduced from the 
effects of extensive stand-replacing wildland fires.
    For these reasons, severe wildland fires have led to a reduction in 
the quality and quantity of the available salamander habitat rangewide, 
reducing the survivorship and fecundity of the salamander rangewide. 
The USFS concludes, and we concur, that habitat loss from extensive, 
stand-replacing wildland fire is a threat to the salamander (USFS 
2009c, p. 1), and these effects will likely continue into the future, 
because areas that have not burned in the past 15 years are still at 
extremely high risk, and areas that have experienced severe wildfires 
in the last 15 years have degraded habitat that continues to adversely 
affect the salamander. We consider the reduction in the quality and 
quantity of habitat from extensive stand-replacing wildland fire to be 
a significant threat to the species, because this threat is rangewide 
and directly kills salamanders or otherwise harms living salamanders by 
affecting salamander behavior, physiology, and reproductive success. 
Therefore, we believe that severe wildland fire has substantially 
impacted the salamander and its habitat, and this trend is expected to 
continue throughout its range in the future, unless and until projects 
attempting to reduce the threat of wildland fire are effectively 
implemented over the large part of the landscape in the Jemez Mountains 
which includes the habitat of the salamander.
Forest Composition and Structure Conversions
    Changes in forest composition and structure exacerbate severe 
wildland fires and are, therefore, considered an interrelated threat to 
the salamander. In addition, changes in forest composition and 
structure may threaten the salamander by directly altering microhabitat 
conditions such as soil moisture, soil temperature, soil pH, relative 
humidity, and air temperature. In an area nearby to salamander habitat, 
but in pi[ntilde]on-juniper woodland (Pinus edulis and Juniperus 
monosperma) at 7,021 ft (2,140 m) elevation in the Jemez Mountains, 
soil moisture conditions can vary spatially between the ground under 
tree canopy and the ground without tree canopy resulting from the 
interrelated processes among soil evaporation, leaf interception, 
runoff generation and redistribution, and plant water use (Breshears et 
al. 1998, p. 1015). Relative to the ground without tree canopy, the 
ground beneath the canopy receives reduced precipitation input due to 
the interception of the precipitation from leaves. This also influences 
soil evaporation rates (Breshears et al. 1998, p. 1010). In a study 
measuring spatial variations in soil evaporation caused by tree shading 
for a water-limited pine forest in Israel, the authors report that the 
spatial variability in soil evaporation correlated with solar 
radiation, which was up to 92 percent higher in exposed compared to 
shaded sites, and with water content, which was higher in exposed areas 
during the wetting season, but higher in the shaded areas during the 
drying season (Raz-Yaseef and Yakir 2010, p. 454). The specific results 
of this study are not applicable to the Jemez Mountains, but generally 
support the findings of Breshears et al. (entire) and highlight the 
importance of the correlated factor of seasonality to all processes. 
Without specific studies measuring these processes in salamander 
habitat, we are not able to determine how the changes in vegetation 
composition and structure may have altered soil moisture, evaporation, 
and temperature processes, but we do understand that vegetation 
structure can directly influence hydrological processes that are 
correlated to solar radiation, precipitation, and seasonality, as well 
as other abiotic factors, such as soil type, slope, and topography. 
Furthermore, these complex interactions should be considered when 
forest restoration treatments that alter canopy cover are conducted in 
salamander habitat.
    Reduced soil moisture disrupts other aboveground activities of 
salamanders (e.g., foraging and mating), because salamanders must first 
address moisture needs above all other life functions (Heatwole and Lim 
196, p. 818). Additionally, ecological changes resulting from forest 
composition changes could result in altered prey availability; however, 
we do not know if such changes would affect the salamander. The type 
and quantity of vegetation affects soil pH (e.g., pine needles are 
acidic, decomposed pine needles can increase the soils acidity), and 
thus could also affect the salamander. Overall, the degree of cascading 
ecological impacts from shifts in forest composition and structure is 
currently unknown; however, alteration of forest composition and 
structure contribute to increased risk of forest die-offs from disease 
and insect infestation 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). Forest die-offs from disease or insect infestation would 
have similar effects to the salamander by reducing canopy closure and 
warming and drying the habitat. We find that the interrelated 
contributions from changes in vegetation due 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, 
Suppression, and Severe Wildland Fires'' section, above), and, in 
addition to continued predicted future changes to forested habitat 
within the range of the species, are threats to the salamander.
    Data collected from the Valles Caldera National Preserve indicates 
that an increase in the amount of tree canopy cover in an area can 
decrease the amount of snow that is able to reach the ground, and can 
ultimately decrease the amount of soil moisture and infiltration 
(Enquist et al. 2009, p. 8). On the Valles Caldera National Preserve, 
95 percent of coniferous forests have thick tree canopy cover with 
heavy understory fuels (Valles Caldera National Preserve 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. Relatively recent increases in tree 
canopy cover, resulting from changes in forest composition and 
structure caused by historical management and fire suppression, could 
be having significant drying effects on salamander habitat. In summary, 
existing and ongoing changes in forest composition and structure are 
interrelated to the threat of severe wildland fire and may also 
directly affect habitat suitability by altering soil moisture, soil 
temperature, soil pH, relative humidity, and air temperature. 
Therefore, forest composition and structure conversions resulting in 
increased canopy cover and denser understory pose threats to the 
salamander now and are likely to continue in the 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

[[Page 55613]]

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 
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 (process that broadcasts a slurry of water and mulch 
over an area) (USFS 2001, p. 1). Rehabilitation actions following the 
Las Conchas Fire included road protections (removal of culverts, 
installation of trash racks and drainage dips); hand and aerial 
seeding; mulching; and removal of trees at Native American ancestral 
communities (USFS 2011a, pp. 7-9; USFS 2012, pp. 1-3).
    In many cases, rehabilitation actions can have further detrimental 
impacts on the Jemez Mountains salamander and its habitat beyond what 
was caused by the fire, but the USFS has made efforts to minimize such 
impacts (USFS 2012, pp. 1-3). For instance, following the Las Conchas 
Fire, rehabilitation actions in the Jemez Mountains salamander's 
habitat that are categorized as ``Essential'' according to the Jemez 
Mountains Salamander Management Plan or categorized as ``Occupied 
Stands'' of Jemez Mountains salamanders by the USFS were limited to 
small-scale areas and included an estimated 4.3 ac (1.7 ha) of habitat 
being impacted for road protections, 7.5 ac (3.0 ha) that were seeded 
and mulched (for archeological site protection and Nordic ski trail 
protection), 150 ac (60.7) disturbed for hazard tree removal (cutting 
trees that could be dangerous by falling onto a roadway), and 3.25 ac 
(1.3 ha) of bulldozer line that was rehabilitated with slash placement 
or seeding (USFS 2011a, pp. 7-9; USFS 2012, pp. 1-3).
    Some post-fire rehabilitation actions may be beneficial for the 
salamander. For example, contour felling can slow erosion and, in cases 
where aboveground rocks are not present or present in low numbers, the 
felled logs can also provide immediate aboveground 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). Similar 
recommendations were made after the Las Conchas Fire (BAER Survey 
Specialist Report 2011, p. 3). We believe these actions would benefit 
the salamander immediately post-fire, but neither of these actions have 
been implemented or tested. Still, some post-fire treatments (e.g., 
grass seeding, heavy equipment operation, bulldozing, tilling, 
hydromulching (process that broadcasts a slurry of water and mulch with 
seed and fertilizer over an area), mulching, erosion control fabrics, 
and removal of aboveground rocks to build rock dams) likely negatively 
impacted the salamander.
    The most common BAER treatment has been grass seeding dropped from 
aircraft (Robichaud et al. 2000, p. 11; Peppin et al. 2010, p. 574). 
Nonnative grasses have typically been seeded because they are fast-
growing and have extensive fibrous roots (Robichaud et al. 2000, p. 
11); however, in more recent years, efforts have been made to use 
native plant species, but their use is often limited by high cost and 
inadequate availability (Peppin et al. 2010, p. 574). Overall, seeding 
with grass is relatively inexpensive, and has been reported to rapidly 
increase water infiltration and stabilize soil (Robichaud et al. 2000, 
p. 11). However, Peppin et al. (2010, p. 573) concluded that post-
wildfire seeding in western U.S. forests does little to protect soil in 
the short term, has equivocal effect on invasion of nonnative species, 
and can have negative effects on native vegetation recovery. 
Nevertheless, nonnative grasses from post-fire rehabilitation efforts 
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 subterranean 
habitat in a manner that is unusable to the salamander. We are aware of 
areas that burned with moderate and high severities in the Dome Fire 
(eastern and southeastern part of its range), where these thick mats of 
grass resulting from rehabilitation still persist, and salamanders are 
no longer found there. It is possible that native grasses could have 
the same effect, because the goal of the rehabilitation effort is to 
stabilize the soil with quick-growing fibrous roots.
    Additionally, grass seed mixtures 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). Finally, how mulching with straw post-fire 
affects the salamander remains unknown, but this practice could have 
significant adverse effects if there is widespread use and the mulch 
creates an impenetrable layer or alters the microecology in the upper 
layers of the soil and at the soil's surface. While the effects to 
salamanders from seeding with nonnative grasses, use of fertilizers, or 
mulch application have not been specifically studied, these actions, 
alone or in combination, have likely caused widespread adverse impacts 
to the salamander. To reduce adverse effects to the salamander 
resulting from post-fire rehabilitation efforts following the Las 
Conchas Fire, efforts were made to avoid seeding in most salamander 
areas (USFS 2011c, p. 9) and avoiding salamander habitat was a specific 
criterion for grass seeding and mulching actions (USFS 2012, p. 3). 
Because many common post-fire treatment actions have the potential to 
have significant, widespread adverse effects, we anticipate habitat 
alterations from wildfire and post-fire rehabilitation will continue to 
be a threat to the salamander localities from both past and future 
treatments.
    In summary, some post-fire treatments, such as contour felling of 
logs and cutting and scattering rounds, may reduce some of the short-
term effects of fire to the salamander and its habitat. However, other 
post-fire treatments negatively impact the salamander and its habitat 
in the long term. Small-scale impacts could occur from removing rocks 
from habitat to build rock dams, and large-scale impacts include grass 
seeding and associated chemicals, and possibly mulching. We conclude 
that, while the effects of high-severity, stand-replacing wildfire are 
the most significant threat to the salamander and its habitat, actions 
taken following wildfires are also a threat to the salamander's habitat 
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. Other 
fire practices, such as broadcast

[[Page 55614]]

burning (i.e., conducting prescribed fires over large areas), consume 
ground litter (leaves, dead plants, etc.) that helps to create moist 
conditions and stabilize soil and rocky slopes. Depending on time of 
year, fire use can also negatively impact the salamander when the 
species is active above ground (typically from July to September). 
However, the wet conditions required for salamander aboveground 
activity are often not conducive to fire. Prescribed fire in the Jemez 
Mountains is often planned for the fall (when the salamanders are not 
active above ground), 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., premonsoon 
rains), the majority of fires likely preceded the salamander's 
aboveground activity. Prescribed fires conducted after September, when 
salamanders typically return to their subterranean retreats, would be 
similar to a natural fire regime in the spring with low direct impacts 
because most salamanders are subterranean at that time. However, the 
indirect impacts of altering the time of year when fire is present on 
the landscape on the salamander and its habitat are unknown.
    Other activities related to fire use that may have negative impacts 
to the salamander and its habitat include digging fire lines, targeting 
the reduction of large decaying logs, and using flares and fire-
retardant chemicals in salamander habitat. Some impacts or stressors to 
the salamander can be avoided through seasonal timing of prescribed 
burns and modifying objectives (e.g., leaving large-diameter logs and 
mixed canopy cover) and by modifying fire management techniques (e.g., 
not using flares or chemicals) 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 
salamander habitat, 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 salamander 
habitat and to work toward recovery of the salamander (USFS 2009, p. 
4), but specific actions or recommendations to accomplish this goal 
have not yet been determined. If the salamander's needs are not 
considered, fire use could make its habitat less suitable (warmer; 
drier; fewer large, decaying logs), and kill or injure salamanders that 
are active above ground. Alternatively, the salamander's habitat 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 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 be a threat to the salamander.
Fire Suppression Activities
    Similarly, fire suppression activities may both protect and 
negatively impact the salamander and its habitat. For example, fire 
suppression actions that occurred in salamander habitat during the 
Cerro Grande Fire included hand line construction and bulldozer line 
construction (digging firebreaks down to bare mineral soil), backfiring 
(burning off heavy ground cover before the main fire reached that fuel 
source), and fire retardant drops (USFS 2001, p. 1). Fire suppression 
actions in modeled salamander habitat on the Santa Fe National Forest 
following the Las Conchas Fire included 1.2 miles (mi) (1.9 kilometers 
(km)) of bulldozer line, 0.6 mi (0.9 km) of hand line, 1.2 mi (1.9 km) 
of fire retardant drop, and 1.5 ac (0.6 ha) of areas cleared for three 
drop points and one Medivac area (USFS 2011d, pp. 1-2). 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. Dropping surface water into terrestrial habitat 
significantly increases the risk of spreading aquatic pathogens into 
terrestrial habitats (see C. Disease and Predation, below).
    The impacts of fire retardants and firefighting foams to the 
salamander are discussed under E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 
Affecting Its Continued Existence, below. Fire suppression actions, 
including the use of fire retardants, water dropping, backfiring, and 
fire line construction, likely impact the salamander's habitat; 
however, the effects of habitat impacts from fire suppression on the 
salamander remain unknown, and, based on the information available at 
this time, we determine that fire suppression actions do not appear to 
be a threat to the salamander's habitat. These activities improve the 
chances of quick fire suppression, and thus fires 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's habitat, 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 and subsequent treatment is 
needed. Mechanical treatment is a fuel-reduction technique that may be 
used alone or in combination with 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 or alter ecological interactions at the soil 
surface that can impact the salamander and its habitat. For example, 
removal of overstory tree canopy or ground cover within salamander 
habitat may cause desiccation of soil or rocky substrates. Also, a 
layer of masticated material could change microhabitat conditions 
making it unsuitable for salamanders (e.g., altering fungal communities 
or physically making it difficult for salamanders to move through). 
Additionally, tree-felling or use of heavy equipment has the potential 
to disturb the substrate, resulting in destabilization of rocky slopes 
and compaction of soil, which may reduce subterranean interstices 
(spaces) used by salamanders for refuges or movement.
    Activities that compact soil, alter ecological interactions at the 
soil surface, remove excessive canopy cover, or are conducted while 
salamanders are aboveground active would be detrimental to the 
salamander and its habitat. A masticator is one type of heavy machinery 
that can be used for mechanical treatment of fuels that could

[[Page 55615]]

potentially compact the soil and leave debris altering the soil surface 
ecology. In one study at a different location, a masticator was 
operated on existing skid trails (temporary trails used to transport 
trees, logs, or other forest products) and did not increase soil 
compaction, because the machinery traveled on existing 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. 3,104). However, studies in the Jemez 
Mountains and effects to soils there have not been conducted.
    At this time, we do not have any specific information whether 
mechanical treatments, including mastication, negatively impact the 
salamander either through altering aboveground habitat or soil 
compaction. We encourage research on these techniques if they are to be 
implemented in salamander habitat. If mechanical treatment and 
hazardous fuels activities are conducted in a manner that minimizes 
impacts to the salamander and its habitat, 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. However, mechanical 
treatments could also pose a threat to the salamander and its habitat 
if conducted in a manner that degrades habitat or makes it unusable to 
the salamander. Finally, if salamanders are active above ground, any of 
these activities could crush any salamanders present. We are not aware 
of any specific large-scale mechanical treatments in salamander 
habitat; however, mastication is an option for treatments in the 
Southwest Jemez Restoration Project area. We do not have information 
indicating that mechanical treatments pose a threat to the salamander.
Forest Silvicultural Practices
    Many areas of the landscape in the Jemez Mountains have been 
fragmented by past silvicultural practices (the care and cultivation of 
forest trees) including commercial (trees greater than 9 inches (in) 
(23 centimeteres (cm)) in diameter at breast height (dbh)) and 
precommercial (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. While salamanders 
still occupy areas where timber harvesting has occurred, the effects of 
past silvicultural practices continue to adversely affect the 
salamander and its habitat through the absence of large-diameter trees 
that, when they fall and decompose, provide high-quality aboveground 
habitat, through the contribution of high fuels increasing the risk of 
large-scale stand-replacing wildfire, and cascading effects on soil 
moisture and temperature.
    From 1935 to 1972, logging (particularly clear-cut logging) was 
conducted on Valles Caldera National Preserve (ENTRIX 2009, p. 164). 
These timber activities resulted in about 50 percent of Valles Caldera 
National Preserve being logged, with over 1,000 mi (1,600 km) 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 Valles 
Caldera National Preserve, 95 percent of forest stands contain dense 
thickets of small-diameter trees, creating a multi-tiered forest 
structure (Valles Caldera National Preserve 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 (as 
opposed to high-intensity, habitat-destroying ground fires) (Allen 
2001, pp. 5-6; USFS 2009a, p. 10). Additionally, all forest types on 
the Valles Caldera National Preserve contain very few late-stage mature 
trees greater than 16 in (41 cm) dbh (less than 10 percent of the 
overall cover) (Valles Caldera National Preserve 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 (Valles Caldera 
National Preserve 2010, p. 3.4). Clear-cutting degrades forest floor 
microhabitats for salamanders by eliminating shading and leaf litter, 
increasing soil surface temperature, and reducing moisture (Petranka 
1998, p. 16).
    In a study comparing 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. 
We do not know if salamanders actually occupied the logged sites prior 
to logging, but significant differences in habitat features (soil pH, 
litter depth, and log size) between the logged and unlogged sites were 
reported (Ramotnik 1986, p. 8). 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). 
Based on the differences between logged and unlogged sites, we believe 
that logging can destroy or modify the Jemez Mountains salamander's 
habitat in such a way that it becomes uninhabitable or less suitable 
for the species.
    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 control (unlogged) areas 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 in recent clear-cut areas, and they estimated that it would 
take as much as 50 to 70 years for clear-cut populations to return to 
pre-clearcut levels. We do not know the amount of time it might take 
for Jemez Mountains salamanders to recover from habitat alterations 
resulting from clear-cut logging, particularly because of concurrent 
and ongoing factors affecting forest stand conditions (e.g., fire 
suppression, livestock grazing, changes in vegetation composition and 
structure).
    The majority of Jemez Mountains salamander habitat has been heavily 
logged, which has resulted in changes in stand structure, including a 
paucity of large-diameter trees. This lack of large-diameter trees 
means that there is a limited source for future large, decaying logs 
that provide high-quality (e.g., relatively cool, high-moisture diurnal 
retreats) aboveground habitat. Ramotnik (1986, p. 12) reported that 
logs with salamanders were significantly larger and wetter than those 
logs without salamanders, and most salamanders were found in well-
decomposed logs. In a similar plethodontid salamander, downed logs 
provide refuge from warmer temperatures and resiliency from impacts 
that can warm and dry habitat (Kluber et al. 2009, p. 31). In summary, 
areas where large-diameter trees have been removed have less high-
quality salamander habitat features and no material for future high-
quality salamander habitat features.
    On the Valles Caldera National Preserve, only minor selective 
logging has occurred since 1972, and it is expected that some thinning 
of secondary growth forests will continue to occur to prevent severe 
wildfires. However, no commercial logging is

[[Page 55616]]

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 (see 
Roads, Trails, and Habitat Fragmentation below) will continue to be a 
threat to the salamander.
    The historical clear-cut logging practices in the Jemez Mountains 
have likely led to significant habitat loss for the salamander. The 
cutting has contributed to current stand conditions (high fuels), and 
the forest lacks large-diameter trees for future high-quality 
aboveground cover objects. We believe that the effects from historical, 
clear-cut logging are currently affecting the salamander and its 
habitat, and will continue to do so in the 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 from biotic pests 
(Wegner 1984, p. 421). Both types of cutting occur in the Jemez 
Mountains salamander's habitat, and are referred to as ``salvage 
logging.'' Salvage logging is a common management response to forest 
disturbance (Lindenmayer et al. 2008, p. 4) and, in the salamander's 
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 decay reduces the economic value 
of the trees, 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 the salamander's habitat, salvage 
logging can further reduce the quality of the salamander's 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 Jemez Mountains 
salamander occurred following the 2002 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 fallen logs (USFS 
2003, pp. 4-5). Mitigation for the salvage logging project included 
conducting activities during winter to avoid soil compaction (as the 
ground is more likely to be frozen and hard at that time), 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 fallen log habitat (USFS 2003, p. 29). These mitigation 
measures were developed in consultation with the New Mexico Endemic 
Salamander Team in an effort to minimize impacts to the Jemez Mountains 
salamander from salvage logging; however, the New Mexico Endemic 
Salamander Team recommended that salvage logging be excluded from 
occupied salamander habitat because it was not clear that, even with 
the additional mitigations, it would meet the conservation objectives 
of the Cooperative Management Plan (New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 
2003, p. 1).
    The mitigation measures would likely benefit the salamander in the 
short term if conducted without salvage logging, or possibly with some 
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, 
which may result in future salvage logging in salamander habitat. We 
believe that if the needs of the salamander are not considered and 
provided for during salvage logging actions in salamander habitat, then 
salvage logging would further diminish 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 
continued existence of the Jemez Mountains salamander. For example, 
removal of trees that may pose a safety hazard may have minimal 
disturbance to surrounding soils or substrates, especially if removal 
is conducted when the species is not active above ground (i.e., 
seasonal restrictions). This type of localized impact may affect a few 
individuals, but it is not likely to affect a population or be 
considered a threat. Likewise, precommercial thinning (removal of trees 
less than 9 in (23 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 to the salamander or its habitat.
    Similarly, some fuels treatment actions, such as thinning in areas 
around at-risk human communities could be conducted in a manner that 
would pose no threat to the salamander. For example, Clayton et al. 
(2009, entire) provides specific guidelines on fuels treatments to 
manage for the persistence and protection on the Siskiyou Mountains 
salamander that include maintaining certain habitat features and 
address specific activity mitigations. We anticipate implementation of 
similar guidelines for the Jemez Mountains salamander will alleviate 
any potential threat from fuels treatment action around at-risk 
communities.
    In summary of forest silvicultural practices, impacts from past 
commercial clear-cut logging activities continue to have detrimental 
effects to the salamander and its habitat. These past activities 
removed large-diameter trees, altered forest canopy structure, created 
roads, compacted soil, and disturbed other important habitat features. 
These effects of historical clear-cutting logging include the warming 
and drying of habitat, and a paucity of large cover objects (decaying 
logs) that would have contributed to habitat complexity and resiliency. 
Salvage logging further diminishes salamander habitat subsequent to 
disturbance. Therefore, we conclude that the salamander continues to 
face threats from current forest silvicultural practices, including 
salvage logging. These actions are smaller in scale relative to the 
range of the species, and we are not aware of any proposals to salvage-
log the large area of the Las Conchas burn area. However, the habitat-
warming and drying effect of these actions may cause additional 
detrimental disturbance to habitat in areas burned by severe wildfire. 
We also conclude that the salamander continues to face threats 
resulting from the habitat-related effects of historical logging 
activities because high-quality, high-moisture retreats are presently 
fewer, and future opportunities for high-quality, high-moisture 
retreats will be extremely rare. Because all salamander life functions 
and activities are based on the individual's water balance, limiting 
opportunities for hydration affects all other aspects of survival and 
reproduction, greatly contributing to the risk of extinction. This 
significant threat

[[Page 55617]]

is occurring now and will continue into 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; New Mexico Endemic 
Salamander Team 2002, pp. 1-2; Kutz 2002, p. 1). 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 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; 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
    In our 12-month finding (75 FR 54822; September 9, 2010), we found 
that residential development was a threat to the salamander, because we 
visually assessed salamander occurrences on a map and it appeared that 
private lands contained substantially sized, contiguous areas of 
salamander habitat, with the potential for future development. However, 
after conducting a GIS (Geographical Information System) analysis for 
the final critical habitat determination to be published soon in the 
Federal Register, we found that only 3 percent (2,817 ac (1,140 ha) of 
the total modeled habitat are private lands, of which 719 ac (291 ha) 
include the Pajarito Ski area, where the habitat is already developed 
and unlikely to be suitable for the salamander in the long term (see 
Recreation, below). The remaining areas of private lands occur as 
noncontiguous scattered parcels. However, some private lands, as well 
as areas with salamander habitat on the Santa Fe National Forest, could 
be developed for private use (USFS 1997, pp. 1-4; USFS 1998, pp. 1-2).
    Development can destroy and fragment the salamander's 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. Furthermore, as the human population continues to increase 
in the Jemez Mountains, we believe development will likely continue to 
directly affect the salamander and its habitat in the future. These 
activities will likely be in the form of new housing and associated 
roads and infrastructure. Although we anticipate some loss and 
degradation of habitat from these activities, salamander habitat on 
private lands is smaller and more isolated than we thought prior to our 
GIS analysis. Moreover, we found very few salamander occurrences on 
private lands. For these reasons, we believe that private residential 
development has the potential to impact the salamander and its habitat, 
but does not constitute a significant threat to the species.
Geothermal Development
    A large volcanic complex in the Jemez Mountains is the only known 
high-temperature geothermal resource in New Mexico (Fleischmann 2006, 
p. 27). Geothermal energy was explored for possible development on the 
Valles Caldera National Preserve between 1959 and 1983 (USFS 2007, p. 
126). In July 1978, the U.S. Department of Energy, Union Oil Company of 
California (Unocal), and the Public Service Company of New Mexico began 
a cooperative geothermal energy project (USFS 2007, p. 126). The 
demonstration project drilled 20 exploratory wells over the next 4 
years. One of the geothermal development locations was south of Redondo 
Peak on the Valles Caldera National Preserve, and the canyon in this 
area was occupied by the salamander (Sabo 1980, pp. 2-4). An 
Environmental Impact Statement analyzed a variety of alternatives, 
including placement of transmission towers and lines (U.S. Department 
of Energy cited in Sabo 1980, pp. 2-5). Nevertheless, the project ended 
in January 1982, because Unocal's predictions concerning the size of 
geothermal resources were not met. Out of the 40 wells drilled in the 
Valles Caldera National Preserve in the Redondo Creek and Sulphur 
Springs areas, only a few yielded sufficient resources to be considered 
production wells (USFS 2007, p. 126). In some cases, these wells were 
drilled in the salamander's habitat and concrete well pads were built.
    Although the geothermal resources are found within the range of the 
salamander in the Jemez Mountains, extraction of large quantities of 
hot fluids from these rocks has proven difficult and not commercially 
viable (USFS 2007, p. 127). As such, we are not aware of any current or 
future plans to construct large or small-scale geothermal power 
production projects within salamander habitat. Moreover, in 2006, the 
mineral rights on the Valles Caldera National Preserve were condemned, 
including geothermal resources (VallesCaldera.com 2010, p. 1). For 
these reasons, geothermal development does not present a current or 
future threat to the salamander.
Roads, Trails, and Habitat Fragmentation
    Construction of roads and trails has historically eliminated or 
reduced the quality or quantity of salamander habitat, reducing blocks 
of native vegetation to isolated fragments, and creating a matrix of 
native habitat islands that have been altered by varying degrees from 
their natural state. Allen (1989, pp. 46, 54, 163, 216-242, and 302) 
collected and analyzed changes in road networks (railroads, paved 
roads, improved roads, dirt roads, and primitive roads) in the Jemez 
Mountains from 1935 to 1981. Landscape-wide road density increased 
11.75 times, from 0.24 mi (0.38 km) of road per mi\2\ (2.6 km\2\) in 
1935, to 2.8 mi (4.5 km) of road per mi\2\ (2.6 km\2\) in 1981, and in 
surface area of from 0.13 percent (610 ac; 247 ha) to 1.7 percent 
(7,739 ac; 3,132 ha) (Allen 1989, pp. 236-240). Allen (1989, p. 240) 
reports that, of 5,246 mi (8,443 km) of roads in the Jemez Mountains in 
1981, 74 percent were mapped on USFS lands (2,241 mi; 3,607 km) and 
private lands (1,646 mi; 2,649 km). These roads generally indicate past 
logging activity of USFS and private lands (Allen 1989 p. 236).
    Ongoing effects of roads and their construction on the Valles 
Caldera National Preserve may exceed the effects of the timber harvests 
for which the roads were constructed (Balmat and Kupfer 2004, p. 46). 
The majority of

[[Page 55618]]

roads within the range of the salamander are unpaved, and the compacted 
soil typically has very low infiltration rates that generate large 
amounts of surface runoff (Robichaud et al. 2010, p. 80). Increasing 
runoff, decreasing infiltration, and increasing edge effects (open 
areas along roads) has led to the drying of adjacent areas of 
salamander habitat.
    The construction of roads and trails (motorized vehicle, bicycle, 
and foot trails) degrades habitat by compacting soil and eliminating 
interstitial spaces above and below ground. 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). 
Furthermore, roads and trails reduce or eliminate important habitat 
features (e.g., lowering canopy cover or drying of soil) and prevent 
gene flow (Saunders et al. 1991, p. 25; Burkey 1995, pp. 527, 528; 
Frankham et al. 2002, p. 310; Noss et al. 2006, p. 219). Vehicular and 
off-highway vehicle (OHV) use of roads and trails can kill or injure 
salamanders. We consider the establishment of roads and trails to be a 
threat that will likely continue to impact the salamander and its 
habitat, increasing the risk of extirpation of some localities.
    Road clearing and maintenance activities can also cause localized 
adverse impacts to the salamander from scraping and widening roads and 
shoulders or maintaining drainage ditches or replacing culverts. These 
activities may kill or injure individuals through crushing by heavy 
equipment. Existing and newly constructed roads or trails fragment 
habitat, increasing the chances of extirpation of isolated populations, 
especially when movement between suitable habitats is not possible 
(Burkey 1995, p. 540; Frankham et al. 2002, p. 314). Isolated 
populations or patches are vulnerable to random events, which could 
easily destroy part of or an entire isolated population, or decrease a 
locality to such a low number of individuals that the risk of 
extirpation from human disturbance, natural catastrophic events, or 
genetic and demographic problems (e.g., loss of genetic diversity, 
uneven male to female ratios) would increase greatly (Shaffer 1987, p. 
71; Burkey 1995, pp. 527, 528; Frankham et al. 2002, pp. 310-324).
    Terrestrial salamanders are impacted by edge effects, typically 
adjacent to roads and areas of timber harvest, because microclimate 
conditions within forest edges often exhibit higher air and soil 
temperatures, lower soil moisture, and lower humidity, compared to 
interior forested areas (Moseley et al. 2009, p. 426). Moreover, by 
creating edge effects, roads can reduce the quality of adjacent habitat 
by increasing light and wind penetration, exposure to pollutants, and 
the spread of invasive species (Marsh et al. 2005, pp. 2004-2005). Due 
to the physiological nature of terrestrial salamanders, they are 
sensitive to these types of microclimate alterations, particularly to 
changes to temperature and moisture (Moseley et al. 2009, p. 426). 
Generally, more salamanders are observed with increasing distance from 
some edge types, which is attributed to reduced moisture and 
microhabitat quality (Moseley et al. 2009, p. 426).
    On the western part of the species' range, road construction on New 
Mexico State Highway 126 around the town of Seven Springs occurred in 
occupied salamander habitat in 2007 and 2008. Measures were implemented 
by the USFS to reduce the impact of these road construction activities 
on salamanders, including limiting construction to times when 
salamanders would not be active above ground (October through June) and 
felling of approximately 300 trees in the project area to replace large 
woody debris that was being used by the salamander but removed by the 
road construction. However, these measures only offered some protection 
for salamanders and their habitat outside the project footprint. The 
rerouting and construction of Highway 126 went through the middle of a 
large salamander population where 24 ac (9.7 ha) of salamander habitat 
were directly impacted by this project (USFS 2009c, p. 2). This project 
destroyed and made unusable the 24 ac (9.7 ha). Also, the project 
fragmented the occupied salamander habitat remaining outside of the 24-
ac (9.7-ha) footprint, because the new road has a nearly vertical cut 
bank and salamanders will not be able to cross it. Continued 
maintenance of State Highway 126 in the future will likely involve the 
use of salts for road de-icing, and increase the exposure of adjacent 
areas to chemicals and pollution from vehicular traffic. Habitat 
fragmentation of and subsequent edge effects due to this road 
construction project have reduced the quality and quantity of 
salamander habitat in this part of its range.
    In 2007, the New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team concluded that 
impacts from OHVs and motorcycles were variable depending on their 
location relative to the salamander's habitat. Because the width of a 
trail is generally smaller than a road, canopy cover typically remains 
over trails. In some cases (e.g., flat areas without deeply cut 
erosion), the trails do not likely impede salamander movement. 
Alternatively, severe erosion caused by heavy trail use by motorcycles 
or OHVs in some places formed trenches approximately 2 ft wide by 2 to 
3 ft deep (0.6 m wide by 0.6 to 0.9 m deep), which would likely prevent 
salamander movement, fragment local populations, and trap salamanders 
that fall into the trenches. Therefore, OHVs and motorcycles could 
severely impact the salamander's habitat.
    On November 9, 2005 (70 FR 68264), the USFS issued the Travel 
Management Rule that requires designation of a system of roads, trails, 
and areas for motor vehicle use by vehicle class and, if appropriate, 
by time of year. As part of this effort, the USFS inventoried and 
mapped roads and motorized trails, and is currently completing a Final 
Environmental Impact Statement to change the usage of some of the 
current system within the range of the salamander. The Santa Fe 
National Forest is attempting to minimize the amount of authorized 
roads or trails in known occupied salamander habitat and will likely 
prohibit the majority of motorized cross-country travel within the 
range of the species (USFS 2009c, p. 2; USFS 2010c p. 95). 
Nevertheless, by closing some areas to OHV use, the magnitude of 
impacts in areas open to OHV use in salamander habitat will be greater 
(New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 2008, p. 2). We acknowledge that 
some individual salamanders may be killed or injured by vehicles and 
OHVs, and that OHV use impacts salamander habitat. However, we believe 
the Santa Fe National Forest is attempting to minimize impacts to the 
salamander and its habitat. Furthermore, we believe that the revised 
travel management regulations will reduce the impact of motorized 
vehicles on the salamander and its habitat by providing a consistent 
policy that can be applied to all classes of motor vehicles, including 
OHVs. We consider unmanaged OHV and motorcycle use to be a threat to 
the salamander, but with the implementation of the forthcoming 
management of motorized trails on the Santa Fe National Forest, the 
threat will be greatly reduced.
    In summary, the extensive roads that currently exist in the Jemez 
Mountains have significantly impacted the salamander and its habitat 
due to the possible death and injury of salamanders; fragmentation and 
population isolation; habitat loss; habitat modification near road 
edges; and in some cases, increased exposure to chemicals, salts, and 
pollution. Roads associated with private development are most likely to 
be constructed or

[[Page 55619]]

expanded in the future in the southern and eastern portions of the 
species' range, because this part of the species' range has the most 
private land. Also, new roads may also be constructed through Federal 
lands within the salamander's range, but such construction is unlikely 
because the Santa Fe National Forest is attempting to reduce roads and 
road usage in the Jemez Mountains. Roads and trails have significantly 
fragmented habitat and likely reduced persistence of existing 
salamander localities. Therefore, we consider roads, trails, and the 
resulting habitat fragmentation to be a threat to the Jemez Mountains 
salamander and its habitat now and in the future.

Recreation

    The Jemez Mountains are heavily used for recreational activities 
that impact the species, including camping, hiking, mountain biking, 
hunting, and skiing; OHV use is addressed above. Located in the 
southwestern Jemez Mountains is the Jemez National Recreation Area. The 
Jemez National Recreation Area comprises 57,650 ac (23,330 ha) and is 
managed by the USFS for the promotion of fishing, camping, rock 
climbing, hunting, and hiking. Nearly 1.6 million people visit the 
Jemez National Recreation Area for recreational opportunities each year 
(Jemez National Recreation Area 2002, p. 2). Despite an existing 
average road density of approximately 2.5 mi (4.0 km) of road per mi\2\ 
(2.6 km\2\) on the Jemez National Recreation Area, off-road use 
continues to occur, resulting in new roads being created or 
decommissioned roads being reopened (Jemez National Recreation Area 
2002, pp. 10-11).
    Using current population and travel trends, the potential 
visitation demand on the Valles Caldera National Preserve is between 
250,000 and 400,000 visits per year (ENTRIX 2009, p. 93). Of this 
projection, the Valles Caldera National Preserve is expected to realize 
120,000 visitors per year by the year 2020 (ENTRIX 2009, p. 94). To put 
this in context, from 2002 to 2007 the Valles Caldera National Preserve 
averaged about 7,600 visitors per year (ENTRIX 2009, p. 13). Bandelier 
National Monument, which has a smaller proportion of salamander habitat 
relative to the Santa Fe National Forest or Valles Caldera National 
Preserve, attracts an average annual visitation of more than 250,000 
people (ENTRIX 2009, p. 92). Fenton Lake State Park in the western part 
of the species' range also contains salamander habitat. The park 
received more than 120,000 visitors on its 70 ac (28 ha) containing 
hiking trails and a fishing lake (ENTRIX 2009, p. 92).
    Campgrounds and associated parking lots and structures have likely 
impacted the salamander's habitat through modification of small areas 
by soil compaction and vegetation removal. Similarly, compaction of 
soil from hiking or mountain biking trails has modified a relatively 
small amount of habitat. The majority of these trails likely do not act 
as barriers to movement or create edge effects similar to roads, 
because they are narrow and do not reduce canopy cover. However, 
similar to OHV trails, deeply eroded mountain bike trails could act as 
barriers and entrap salamanders.
    The Pajarito Ski Area in Los Alamos County was established in 1957 
and expanded through 1994. Ski runs were constructed within salamander 
habitat. A significant amount of high-quality habitat (north-facing 
mountain slopes with mixed-conifer forests and many salamander 
observations (New Mexico Heritage Program 2010a and b, spreadsheets) 
was destroyed with construction of the ski areas, and the runs and 
roads have fragmented and created a high proportion of edge areas. 
Nevertheless, surveys conducted in 2001 in two small patches of 
forested areas between ski runs detected salamanders (Cummer et al. 
2001, pp. 1-2). Most areas between runs remain unsurveyed. However, 
because of the large amount of habitat destroyed, the extremely small 
patch sizes that remain, and relatively high degree of edge effects and 
fragmentation, the salamander will likely not persist in these areas in 
the long term.
    Adjacent to the downhill ski runs are cross country ski trails. 
These trails are on USFS land, but maintained by a private group. In 
2001, trail maintenance and construction with a bulldozer was conducted 
by the group in salamander habitat during salamander aboveground 
activity period (New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team 2001, p. 1). Trail 
maintenance was reported as leveling all existing ski trails with a 
bulldozer, which involved substantial soil disturbance, cutting into 
slopes as much as 2 ft (0.6 m), filling other areas in excess of 2 ft 
(0.6 m), widening trails, and downing some large trees (greater than 10 
in (25 cm) dbh), ultimately disturbing approximately 2 to 5 ac (1 to 2 
ha) of occupied salamander habitat (Sangre de Christo Audubon Society 
2001, pp. 2-3). This type of trail maintenance, while salamanders were 
active above ground, may have resulted in direct impacts to 
salamanders, and further fragmented and dried habitat. We do not know 
if there are future plans to modify or expand the existing ski area.
    The Jemez Mountains are currently heavily used for recreational 
activities, and, as human populations in New Mexico continue to expand, 
demand for recreational opportunities in the Jemez Mountains will 
likely increase. Individually, recreational activities that are small 
in scale, such as hunting, hiking, fishing, or dispersed camping are 
not considered as threats; however, the additive nature of recreational 
activities that include or contribute to activities that are larger in 
scale, such as off-road use and ski area expansions, are considered a 
threat to the species. Therefore, we conclude that recreational 
activities are currently a threat to the salamander, and will continue 
to be a threat in the future.
Livestock Grazing
    Historical livestock grazing contributed to changes in the Jemez 
Mountains ecosystem by removing understory grasses, contributing to 
altered fire regimes and vegetation composition and structure, and 
increasing soil erosion. Livestock grazing generally does not occur 
within salamander habitat, because cattle concentrate outside of 
forested areas where grass and water are more abundant. We have no 
information that indicates livestock grazing is a direct or indirect 
threat to the salamander or its habitat. However, small-scale habitat 
modification, such as livestock trail establishment or trampling in 
occupied salamander habitat, is possible. The USFS and Valles Caldera 
National Preserve manage livestock to maintain fine grassy fuels, and 
should not limit low-intensity fires in the future. Although some 
small-scale habitat modification is possible, livestock are managed to 
maintain a grassy forest understory. Therefore, we do not consider 
livestock grazing to be a current threat to the salamander's habitat, 
nor do we anticipate that it will be in the future.
Conservation Plans Designed To Protect Salamander Habitat
    The New Mexico Endemic Salamander Cooperative Management Plan and 
Conservation Agreement were completed in 2000 (see Previous Federal 
Actions section in the proposed listing rule for the Jemez Mountains 
salamander (77 FR 56482; September 12, 2012). These are nonregulatory 
documents and were intended to be a mechanism to provide for 
conservation and protection and preclude listing the Jemez Mountains 
salamander under the Endangered Species Act, as amended,

[[Page 55620]]

(U.S. General Accounting Office 1993, p. 9). The goal of these 
documents was to ``. . . provide guidance for the conservation and 
management of sufficient habitat to maintain viable populations of the 
species'' (New Mexico Endemic Salamander 2000, p. i.). The intent of 
the agreement was to protect the salamander and its habitat on lands 
administered by the USFS; however, they have been ineffective in 
preventing the ongoing loss of salamander habitat, and they are not 
expected to prevent further declines of the species. The Conservation 
Agreement and the Cooperative Management Plan do not meet the criteria 
of the Policy for Evaluation of Conservation Efforts policy because the 
Cooperative Management Plan covers only a portion of the range of the 
salamander, the Agreement is expired, and the Cooperative Management 
Plan lacks specificity for conservation actions, and lacks certainty 
that conservation measures will be implemented or effective.
    Nonetheless, the New Mexico Endemic Salamander Team continues to 
meet to discuss management actions in salamander habitat, mitigation 
recommendations for actions occurring in salamander habitat, and 
research needs. Inadequate personnel and financial resources appear to 
be the greatest limiting factor in salamander conservation efforts.
    Also, Los Alamos National Laboratory has a Best Management 
Practices document whereby they have committed to, whenever possible, 
retaining trees in order to maintain greater than 80 percent canopy 
cover, and avoiding activities that either compact soils or dry habitat 
(Los Alamos National Laboratory 2010, p. 7).
Summary
    In summary of Factor A, the Jemez Mountains salamander and its 
habitat experience threats from historical and current fire management 
practices; severe wildland fire; forest composition and structure 
conversions; post-fire rehabilitation; forest management (including 
silvicultural practices); roads, trails, and habitat fragmentation; and 
recreation. Because these threats warm and dry habitat, they affect all 
behavioral and physiological functions of the species, and ultimately 
reduce the survivorship and reproductive success of salamanders across 
the entire range of the species, greatly impacting the salamander and 
its habitat. Further, these significant threats are occurring now and 
are expected to continue in the future. While conservation plans and 
agreements have the goal of conserving and managing the salamander, 
these efforts have been ineffective in preventing ongoing loss and they 
are not sufficient to ameliorate or remove this threat. We, therefore, 
determine that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of habitat and range represents a current significant 
threat to the salamander, and will continue to do so in the future.

B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    Between 1960 and 1999, nearly 1,000 salamanders were collected from 
the wild for scientific or educational purposes (Painter 1999, p. 1). 
The majority (738 salamanders) were collected between 1960 and 1979 
(Painter 1999, p. 1). Since 1999, very few salamanders have been 
collected, and all were collected under a valid permit, issued by 
either NMDGF or USFS. This species is difficult to maintain in 
captivity, and we know of no salamanders in the pet trade or in 
captivity for educational or scientific purposes.
    In 1967, salamanders were only known from seven localities (Reagan 
1967, p. 13). Only one of these localities (the ``Type Locality'' in 
the southern portion of the salamanders range) was described as having 
an ``abundant salamander population'' (Reagan 1967, p. 8). The species 
was originally described using specimens collected from this 
population, which is located in the southern portion of the species' 
range (Stebbins and Reimer 1950, pp. 73-80). Many researchers went to 
this site for collections and studies. Reagan (1967, p. 11) collected 
165 salamanders from this locality between 1965 and 1967, whereas 
Williams collected an additional 67 of 659 salamanders found at this 
locality in 1970 (1972, p. 11). The information regarding the 
disposition of the 659 salamanders in this study is unclear, and it is 
possible more of these individuals were collected. Nonetheless, an 
unspecified but ``large percentage'' of the nearly 1,000 collected 
salamanders were reported from the ``Type Locality'' (Painter 1999, p. 
1) and deposited as museum specimens around the country. Although 
surveys have been conducted at this locality since the 1990s, no 
salamanders have been found, suggesting that salamanders in the area 
may have been extirpated from overcollection. We are not aware of any 
other localities where the species has been extirpated from 
overcollection. Nevertheless, it is possible that repeated collections 
of individuals can lead to extirpation. We believe this is no longer a 
threat, because collections are stringently regulated through permits 
issued by NMDGF and the USFS (see Factor D, below). Due to these 
measures, we do not believe that collection will be a threat in the 
future.
    Survey techniques associated with scientific inquiries and 
monitoring the salamander can alter salamander habitat by disturbing 
and drying the areas underneath the objects that provide cover, and by 
destroying decaying logs as a result of searching inside them. 
Beginning in 2011, the Service, NMDGF, and other partners are hosting 
annual training workshops to train surveyors on techniques that will 
minimize adverse effects to salamanders and their habitat, including 
replacing cover objects as they were found and leaving part of every 
log intact; however, impacts will still occur. When surveys are 
dispersed over multiple intervening years, impacts are likely lessened; 
however, when a location is repeatedly surveyed, habitat quality is 
diminished. We are aware of a few locations that have received impacts 
from repeated surveys for demographic studies conducted by NMDGF, but 
those studies have since concluded (NMDGF 2000, p. 1). We are currently 
working with the NMDGF, the USFS, and other partners on a survey 
protocol testing the efficacy of artificial cover objects to further 
minimize impacts to the salamander and its habitat.
    We do not have any recent evidence of threats to the salamander 
from overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes, and we have no reason to believe this factor will 
become a threat to the species in the future. Therefore, based on a 
review of the available information, we do not consider overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes to be 
a threat to the salamander now or in the future.

C. Disease or Predation

    The amphibian pathogenic fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) 
was found in a wild-caught Jemez Mountains salamander in 2003 on the 
east side of the species' range and again in another Jemez Mountains 
salamander in 2010 on the west side of the species' range (Cummer et 
al. 2005, p. 248; Pisces Molecular 2010, p. 3). Batrachochytrium 
dendrobatidis causes the disease chytridiomycosis, whereby the Bd 
fungus attacks keratin in amphibians. In adult amphibians, keratin 
primarily occurs in the skin. The symptoms of chytridiomycosis can 
include sloughing of skin, lethargy, morbidity, and death. 
Chytridiomycosis has been linked with worldwide

[[Page 55621]]

amphibian declines, die-offs, and extinctions, possibly in association 
with climate change (Pounds et al. 2006, p. 161).
    In New Mexico, Bd has caused significant population declines and 
local extirpations in the federally threatened Chiricahua leopard frog 
(Lithobates chiricahuensis) (USFWS 2007, p. 14). It is also implicated 
in the decline of other leopard frogs and the disappearance of the 
boreal toad (Bufo boreas) from the State (NMDGF 2006, p. 13). Prior to 
the detection of Bd in the Jemez Mountains salamander, Bd was 
considered an aquatic pathogen (Longcore et al. 1999, p. 221; Cummer et 
al. 2005, p. 248). The salamander does not have an aquatic life stage 
and is strictly terrestrial; thus, the mode of transmission of Bd 
remains unknown. It is possible that the fungus was transported by 
other amphibian species that utilize the same terrestrial habitat. Both 
the tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum) and the boreal chorus frog 
(Pseudacris maculata) are amphibians that have aquatic life stages and 
share terrestrial habitat with the Jemez Mountains salamander. In 
California, Bd has been present in wild populations of another strictly 
terrestrial salamander since 1973, without apparent population declines 
(Weinstein 2009, p. 653).
    Cummer (2006, p. 2) reported that noninvasive skin swabs from 66 
Jemez Mountains salamanders, 14 boreal chorus frogs, and 24 tiger 
salamanders from the Jemez Mountains were all negative for Bd. 
Approximately 30 additional Jemez Mountains salamanders have been 
tested through 2010, resulting in the second observation of Bd in the 
salamander. Overall, sampling for Bd from Jemez Mountains salamanders 
has been limited and only observed on two salamanders. The observation 
of Bd in the salamander indicates that the species is exposed to the 
pathogen and could acquire infection; however, whether the salamander 
will get or is susceptible to chytridiomycosis remains unknown. 
Although Bd can be highly infectious and can lead to disease and death, 
the pathogenicity of Bd and amphibians varies greatly among and within 
amphibian species.
    Bd may be a threat to the Jemez Mountains salamander, because we 
know that this disease is a threat to many other species of amphibians, 
and the pathogen has been detected in the salamander. Currently, there 
is a lack of sufficient sampling to definitely conclude that Bd is a 
threat, but the best available information indicates that it could be a 
threat, and additional sampling and studies are needed. We intend to 
continue monitoring for the prevalence of Bd in the salamander to 
determine if disease rises to a level of a threat to the salamander now 
or in the future.
    Ranavirus is another emerging infectious disease of potential 
concern for the Jemez Mountains salamander. Pathogens belonging to the 
genus Ranavirus are multi-host (Schock et al. 2008, p. 133) and in 
conjunction with Bd are considered the two dominant disease factors in 
global amphibian declines (Muths et al. 2012, p. 2). Like Bd, 
ranaviruses are effectively transmitted in water, and infection and 
disease varies among host species and developmental stages, ranavirus 
isolate types, co-evolution factors, and environmental factors (Miller 
et al. 2011, p. 2351). In a targeted study in Great Smokey Mountains 
National Park, Tennessee, the prevalence of Ranavirus in lungless 
salamanders of the family Plethodontidae was assessed. Ranavirus was 
found in all 10 species tested, including one species of Plethodon. 
While the Jemez Mountains salamander has not been tested for the 
presence of Ranavirus, and the pathogenicity of ranaviruses to 
plethodontid salamanders remains unknown (Gray et al. 2009, p. 318), 
this pathogen may pose a threat to the Jemez Mountains salamander. 
Similar to Bd, however, is a lack of sufficient sampling to definitely 
conclude that Ranavirus is a threat; additional sampling and studies 
are needed. Finally, because both Bd and Ranavirus have the potential 
to be significant threats to the salamander, biosecurity measures 
should be strictly followed by field personnel to prevent transmission 
of the pathogens among populations.
    Indirect effects from livestock activities may include the risk of 
aquatic disease transmission from earthen stock ponds that create areas 
of standing surface water. Earthen stock tanks are often utilized by 
tiger salamanders, which are known to be vectors for disease (i.e., 
they can carry and spread disease) (Davidson et al. 2003, pp. 601-607). 
Earthen stock tanks can also concentrate tiger salamanders, increasing 
chances of disease dispersal to other amphibian species. Some tiger 
salamanders use adjacent upland areas and may transmit disease to Jemez 
Mountains salamanders in areas where they co-occur. However, we do not 
have enough information to draw conclusions on the extent or role tiger 
salamanders may play in disease transmission. The connection between 
earthen stock tanks for livestock and aquatic disease transmission to 
Jemez Mountains salamanders is unclear.
    We are not aware of any unusual predation outside of what may 
normally occur to the species by predators such as snakes (Squamata) 
(Painter et al. 1999, p. 48), shrews (Soricidae), skunks (Mephitidae), 
black bears (Ursus americanus), and owls (Strigiformes).
    In summary, we have no information indicating that predation is a 
threat to the Jemez Mountains salamander now or in the future. Also, 
the best available information does not indicate that disease is a 
threat to the salamander's continued existence now, but it could be a 
threat in the future. However, additional sampling and studies are 
needed.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

State Regulations
    New Mexico State law provides some protection to the salamander. 
The salamander was reclassified by the State of New Mexico from 
threatened to endangered in 2005 (NMDGF 2005, p. 2). This designation 
provides protection under the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act of 
1974 (i.e., State Endangered Species Act) (19 NMAC 33.6.8) by 
prohibiting direct take of the species without a permit issued from the 
State. The New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act defines ``take'' or 
``taking'' as harass, hunt, capture, or kill any wildlife or attempt to 
do so (17 NMAC 17.2.38). In other words, New Mexico's classification as 
an endangered species only conveys protection from collection or harm 
to the animals themselves without a permit. New Mexico's statutes are 
not designed to address habitat protection, indirect effects, or other 
threats to these species, and one of the primary threats to the 
salamander is the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat, as 
discussed in Factor A. There is no provision for formal consultation 
process to address the habitat requirements of the species or how a 
proposed action may affect the needs of the species. Because most of 
the threats to the species are from effects to habitat, protecting 
individuals, without addressing habitat threats, will not ensure the 
salamander's long-term conservation and survival.
    Although the New Mexico State statutes require the NMDGF to develop 
a recovery plan that will restore and maintain habitat for the species, 
the Jemez Mountains salamander does not have a finalized recovery plan. 
The Wildlife Conservation Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec.  17-2-37-46 
(1995)) states that, to the extent practicable, recovery plans

[[Page 55622]]

shall be developed for species listed by the State as threatened or 
endangered. While the species does not have a finalized recovery plan, 
NMDGF has the authority to consider and recommend actions to mitigate 
potential adverse effects to the salamander during its review of 
development proposals. However, there is no requirement to follow the 
State's recommendations, as was demonstrated during the construction 
and realignment of Highway 126, when NMDGF made recommendations to 
limit impacts to the salamander and its habitat, but none of the 
measures recommended were incorporated into the project design (New 
Mexico Game Commission 2006, pp. 12-13) (see A. Present or Threatened 
Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or 
Range section, above).
Federal Regulations
    Under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 
1701 et seq.) and the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 
1600 et seq.), the USFS is directed to prepare programmatic-level 
management plans to guide long-term resource management decisions. 
However, in practice, the provisions of these statutes that require 
consideration of rare species have not been able to address the threats 
to the Jemez Mountains salamander.
    The Jemez Mountains salamander has been on the Regional Forester's 
Sensitive Species List since 1990 (USFS 1990, 1999, p. 14; 2007, p. 1), 
the same time period when the species was being reviewed for listing 
under the Act, as amended (See Previous Federal Actions above). The 
Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List policy is applied to 
projects implemented under the 1982 National Forest Management Act 
Planning Rule (49 FR 43026, September 30, 1982).
    All existing plans continue to operate under the 1982 Planning Rule 
and all of its associated implementing regulations and policies; 
however, all new plans and plan revisions must conform to the new 2012 
planning requirements (68 FR 21162; April 9, 2012). As Forest Plans are 
revised under this new planning requirement, National Forests will 
develop coarse-filter plan components, and fine-filter plan components 
where necessary, to contribute to the recovery of listed species and 
conserve proposed and candidate species (68 FR 21162; April 9, 2012). 
National Forests will also provide the desired ecological conditions 
necessary to maintain viable populations of species of conservation 
concern within the plan area, or to contribute to maintaining a viable 
population of a species of conservation concern across its range where 
it is not within the USFS's authority or is beyond the inherent 
capability of the plan area (68 FR 21162; April 9, 2012). We do not 
have a schedule for the Forest Plan revisions on the Santa Fe National 
Forest. As the Forest Plan is revised, it is unclear whether the 2012 
planning requirements will provide adequate protection of the 
salamander on National Forest System lands. In the interim, the Forest 
Plans will continue to operate under the 1982 planning rule. The Santa 
Fe National Forest will continue developing biological evaluation 
reports and conducting analyses under the National Environmental Policy 
Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) for each project that will affect the 
salamander or its habitat. As noted above, the Santa Fe National Forest 
may implement treatments under the Collaborative Forest Landscape 
Restoration project that, if funded and effective, have the potential 
to reduce the threat of severe wildland fire in the southern and 
western part of the salamander's range over the next 10 years (USFS 
2009c, p. 2). At this time, matching funding for the full 
implementation of the project is not certain, nor is it likely to 
address short-term risk of severe wildland fire. While the Regional 
Forester's sensitive species designation provides for consideration of 
the salamander during planning of activities, it does not preclude 
activities that may harm salamanders or their habitats on the Santa Fe 
National Forest.
    In summary, while the New Mexico Wildlife Conservation Act provides 
some protections for the Jemez Mountains salamander, specifically 
against take, it is not designed nor intended to protect the 
salamander's habitat, and one of the primary threats to the salamander 
is the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat. Further, while 
NMDGF has the authority to consider and recommend actions to mitigate 
potential adverse effects to the salamander during review of 
development proposals, there is no requirement to follow these 
recommendations. With respect to Federal protections, the salamander 
has been on the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List since 1990 
(USFS 1990), but while this designation provides for consideration of 
the salamander during planning of activities, it does not prevent 
activities that may harm salamanders or their habitats on the Santa Fe 
National Forest.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

Chemical Use
    The salamander has the potential to be impacted by chemical use. 
Chemicals are used to suppress wildfire and for noxious weed control. 
Because the salamander has permeable skin, and respiration occurs 
through the skin and physiological functions are carried out with its 
skin, it may be susceptible if it comes in contact with fire retardants 
or herbicides. Chemicals may impact individual salamanders and their 
habitat, but based the best available scientific and commercial data 
does not indicate that it is a threat to the species as a whole. Many 
of these chemicals have not been assessed for effects to amphibians, 
and none have been assessed for effects to terrestrial amphibians. We 
do not currently have information that chemical use is a threat to the 
salamander.
    Prior to 2006 (71 FR 42797, July 28, 2006), fire retardant used by 
the USFS contained sodium ferrocyanide, which is highly toxic to fish 
and amphibians (Pilliod et al. 2003, p. 175), but its impacts on 
terrestrial salamanders is not known. In 2000, fire retardant was used 
in salamander habitat for the Cerro Grande Fire, but we have no 
information on the quantity or location of its use (USFS 2001, p. 1). 
While sodium ferrocyanide is no longer used by USFS to suppress 
wildfire, similar retardants and foams may still contain ingredients 
that are toxic to the salamander. Beginning in 2010, the USFS began 
phasing out the use of ammonium sulfate because of its toxicity to fish 
and replacing it with ammonium phosphate (USFS 2009e, p. 1), which may 
have adverse effects to the salamander. We do not have any scientific 
reports indicating whether the chemicals currently used in fire 
retardants or foams adversely impact terrestrial salamanders, but it is 
possible.
    The USFS is in the process of completing an Environmental Impact 
Statement regarding the use of herbicides to manage noxious or invasive 
plants (Orr 2010, p. 2). Chemicals that could be used include 2,4,D; 
Clopyralid; Chorsulfuron; Dicamba; Glyphosate; Hexazinone; Imazapic; 
Imazapyr; Metasulfuron Methyl; Sulfometuron Methyl; Picloram; and 
Triclopyr (Orr 2010, p. 2). We reviewed the ecological risk assessments 
for these chemicals at https://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml, but found few studies and data relative to amphibians. We 
found a single study for Sulfometuron Methyl

[[Page 55623]]

conducted on the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis) (an aquatic frog 
not native to the United States). This study resulted in alterations in 
limb and organ development and metamorphosis (Klotzbach and Durkin 
2004, pp. 4-6, 4-7). The use of chemicals listed above by hand-held 
spot treatments or roadside spraying (Orr 2010, p. 2) in occupied 
salamander habitat could result in impacts to the salamander. Because 
of the lack of toxicological studies of these chemicals, we do not have 
information indicating that these chemicals pose a threat to the 
salamander. However, we will continue to evaluate whether these 
chemicals are a threat to the salamander.
Climate Change
    Our analyses under the Endangered Species Act include consideration 
of ongoing and projected changes in climate. The terms ``climate'' and 
``climate change'' are defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC). ``Climate'' refers to the average and 
variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30 
years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or 
longer periods also may be used (International Panel on Climate Change 
2007, p. 78). The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in 
the average or variability of one or more measures of climate (e.g., 
temperature or precipitation) that persists for an extended period, 
typically decades or longer, whether the change is due to natural 
variability, human activity, or both (International Panel on Climate 
Change 2007, p. 78). Various types of changes in climate can have 
direct or indirect effects on species. These effects may be positive, 
neutral, or negative and they may change over time, depending on the 
species and other relevant considerations, such as the effects of 
interactions of climate with other variables (e.g., habitat 
fragmentation) (International Panel on Climate Change 2007, pp. 8-14, 
18-19). In our analyses, we use our expert judgment to weigh relevant 
information, including uncertainty, in our consideration of various 
aspects of climate change.
    Habitat drying affects salamander physiology, behavior, and 
viability; will affect the occurrence of natural events such as fire, 
drought, and forest die-off; and will increase the risk of disease and 
infection. Trends in climate change and drought conditions have 
contributed to temperature increases in the Jemez Mountains, with a 
corresponding decrease in precipitation. Because the salamander is 
terrestrial, constrained in range, and isolated to the higher 
elevations of the Jemez Mountains, continued temperature increases and 
precipitation decreases could threaten the viability of the species 
over its entire range.
    Climate simulations of the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PSDI) (a 
calculation of the cumulative effects of precipitation and temperature 
on surface moisture balance) for the Southwest for the periods of 2006-
2030 and 2035-2060 show an increase in drought severity with surface 
warming. Additionally, drought still increases during wetter 
simulations because of the effect of heat-related moisture loss 
(Hoerling and Eicheid 2007, p. 19). Annual average precipitation is 
likely to decrease in the Southwest as well as the length of snow 
season and snow depth (International Panel on Climate Change (2007b, p. 
887). Most models project a widespread decrease in snow depth in the 
Rocky Mountains and earlier snowmelt (International Panel on Climate 
Change 2007b, p. 891). Exactly how climate change will affect 
precipitation is less certain, because precipitation predictions are 
based on continental-scale general circulation models that do not yet 
account for land use and land cover change effects on climate or 
regional phenomena. Consistent with recent observations in climate 
changes, the outlook presented for the Southwest and New Mexico predict 
warmer, drier, drought-like conditions (Seager et al. 2007, p. 1181; 
Hoerling and Eischeid 2007, p. 19).
    McKenzie et al. (2004, p. 893) suggest, based on models, that the 
length of the fire season will likely increase further and that fires 
in the western United States will be more frequent and more severe. In 
particular, they found that fire in New Mexico appears to be acutely 
sensitive to summer climate and temperature changes and may respond 
dramatically to climate warming.
    Plethodontid salamanders have a low metabolic rate and relatively 
large energy stores (in tails) that provide the potential to survive 
long periods between unpredictable bouts of feeding (Feder 1983, p. 
291). Despite these specializations, terrestrial salamanders must have 
sufficient opportunities to forage and build energy reserves for use 
during periods of inactivity. As salamander habitat warms and dries, 
the quality and quantity of habitat decreases along with the amount of 
time that salamanders could be active above ground. Wiltenmuth (1997, 
pp. ii-122) concluded that the Jemez Mountains salamanders likely 
persist by utilizing moist microhabitats and they may be near their 
physiological limits relative to water balance and moist skin. During 
field evaluations, the species appeared to be in a dehydrated state. If 
the species has difficulty maintaining adequate skin moisture (e.g., 
see Wiltenmuth 1997, pp. ii-122), it will likely spend less time being 
active. As a result, energy storage, reproduction, and long-term 
persistence would be reduced.
    Wiltenmuth (1997, p. 77) reported rates of dehydration and 
rehydration were greatest for the Jemez Mountains salamander compared 
to the other salamanders, and suggested greater skin permeability. 
While the adaptation to relatively quickly rehydrate and dehydrate may 
allow the salamander to more quickly rehydrate when moisture becomes 
available, it may also make it more susceptible and less resistant to 
longer dry times because it also quickly dehydrates. Dehydration 
affects the salamander by increasing heart rate, oxygen consumption, 
and metabolic rate (Whitford 1968, p. 249), thus increasing energy 
demand, limiting movements (Wiltenmuth 1997, p. 77), increasing 
concentration and storage of waste products (Duellman and Trueb 1986, 
p. 207), decreasing burst locomotion (stride length, stride frequency, 
and speed) (Wiltenmuth 1997, p. 45), and sometimes causing death. 
Moisture-stressed salamanders prioritize hydration over all else, 
thereby reducing salamander survival and persistence. Additional 
impacts from dehydration could include increased predation because 
burst locomotion is impaired (which reduces ability to escape) and 
increased susceptibility to pathogens resulting from depressed immunity 
from physiological stress of dehydration. Any of these factors, alone 
or in combination, could lead either to the reduction or extirpation of 
salamander localities, especially in combination with the threats of 
habitat-altering activities, as discussed under Factor A.
    The International Panel on Climate Change (2007, pp. 12-13) 
predicts that changes in the global climate system during the 21st 
century will very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th 
century. For the next two decades, a warming of about 0.4 degrees 
Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (0.2 degrees Celsius ([deg]C)) (per decade is 
projected (International Panel on Climate Change 2007, p. 12). The 
Nature Conservancy of New Mexico analyzed recent changes in New 
Mexico's climate. Parts I and II of a three-part series have been 
completed. In Part I, the time period 1961-1990 was used as the 
reference condition for analysis of recent departures (1991-2005; 2000-
2005). This time period is consistent with the baseline used by the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the International

[[Page 55624]]

Panel on Climate Change for presenting 20th-century climate anomalies 
and generating future projections (Enquist and Gori 2008, p. 9). In 
Part II, trends in climate water deficit (an indicator of biological 
moisture stress, or drying), snowpack, and timing of peak stream flows 
were assessed for the period of 1970-2006 (Enquist et al. 2008, p. iv). 
The Nature Conservancy of New Mexico concludes the following regarding 
climate conditions in New Mexico and the Jemez Mountains:
    (1) Over 95 percent of New Mexico has experienced average 
temperature increases; warming has been greatest in the Jemez Mountains 
(Enquist and Gori 2008, p. 16).
    (2) Ninety-three percent of New Mexico's watersheds experienced 
increasing annual trends in moisture stress during 1970-2006, that is, 
they have become relatively drier (Enquist et al. 2008, p. iv).
    (3) Snowpack has declined in 98 percent of sites analyzed in New 
Mexico; the Jemez Mountains has experienced significant declines in 
snowpack (Enquist et al. 2008, p. iv).
    (4) In the period 1980-2006, the timing of peak runoff from 
snowmelt occurred 2 days earlier than in the 1951-1980 period (Enquist 
et al. 2008, pp. 9, 25).
    (5) The Jemez Mountains have experienced warmer and drier 
conditions during the 1991-2005 time period (Enquist and Gori 2008, pp. 
16, 17, 23).
    (6) The Jemez Mountains ranked highest of 248 sites analyzed in New 
Mexico in climate exposure--a measure of average temperature and 
average precipitation departures (Enquist and Gori 2008, pp. 10, 22, 
51-58).
    Although the extent of warming likely to occur is not known with 
certainty at this time, the International Panel on Climate Change 
(2007a, p. 5) has concluded that the summer season will experience the 
greatest increase in warming in the Southwest (International Panel on 
Climate Change 2007b, p. 887). Temperature has strong effects on 
amphibian immune systems and may be an important factor influencing 
susceptibility of amphibians to pathogens (e.g., see Raffel et al. 
2006, p. 819); thus, increases in temperature in the Jemez Mountains 
have the potential to increase the salamander's susceptibility to 
disease and pathogens. As noted, we have no information that indicates 
disease is a threat to the species, but we intend to evaluate this 
issue further.
Climate Change Summary
    In summary, we find that current and future effects from warmer 
climate conditions in the Jemez Mountains could reduce the amount of 
suitable salamander habitat, reduce the time period when the species 
can be active above ground, and increase the moisture demands and 
subsequent physiological stress on salamanders. Warming and drying 
trends in the Jemez Mountains currently are threats to the species, and 
these threats are projected to continue into the future.

Determination

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), and its implementing 
regulations at 50 CFR part 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, we may list a species based 
on (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. Listing actions may be warranted based on any of 
the above threat factors, singly or in combination.
    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the Jemez Mountains salamander. Habitat loss, degradation, and 
modification through the interrelated effects from severe wildland 
fire, historical and current fire management practices, forest 
composition and structure conversions, and climate change have impacted 
the salamander by curtailing its range and affecting its behavioral and 
physiological functions. Because the salamander has highly permeable 
skin used for gas exchange and respiration, it must stay moist at all 
times or it will die. Salamanders have little control in maintaining 
water balance except through physically changing where they are in the 
environment, seeking high-moisture areas to hydrate and avoiding warm, 
dry areas where they would otherwise dehydrate. Warmer temperatures 
increase water use and dehydration, as well as increase metabolic 
processes, which then in turn require additional energy for the 
salamander. These life-history traits make hydration maintenance the 
most important activity of the salamander life functions. Therefore, 
any action or factor that warms and dries its habitat adversely affects 
the Jemez Mountains salamander and its ability to carry out normal 
behavior (foraging and reproduction).
    Furthermore, historical silvicultural practices removed most of the 
large-diameter Douglas fir trees from the Jemez Mountains, and this 
change affects the salamander now and will continue to do so in the 
future, because a lack of these trees results in a lack of the highest 
quality cover objects available to Jemez Mountains salamanders now and 
in the future. For other related plethodontid salamanders, these types 
of cover objects were an important component in providing resiliency 
from the effects of factors that warm and dry habitat, such as climate 
change (See Factor A).
    Finally, this species has a restricted range within one small 
mountain range in northern New Mexico, with no movement or expansion 
potential to other areas outside of its current range. This species is 
not able to tolerate the hot dry conditions at lower elevations that 
completely surround the Jemez Mountains and occupies habitat to the 
highest elevations in this mountain range. Within its occupied habitat 
where habitat features are continuous, Jemez Mountains salamander 
observations are often isolated. Within the restricted habitat of the 
Jemez Mountains, this species likely makes only very small movements. 
We are aware of only three populations, the two in Valles Caldera 
National Preserve mentioned earlier and one in Alamo Canyon, that have 
higher relative densities compared to all other known Jemez Mountains 
salamander occurrences (and even these areas are not considered as 
densely populated as reported from the 1970's). Combined, this 
information suggests recolonization or expansion opportunities, 
particularly after habitat alteration, and genetic exchange among 
populations may be limited.
    On the basis of this information, we find that the threats to the 
Jemez Mountains salamander most significantly result from habitat loss, 
habitat degradation, and habitat modification, including severe 
wildland fire, but also alterations to habitat of varying magnitude 
from fire suppression, forest composition and structure conversions, 
post-fire rehabilitation, forest and fire management, roads, trails, 
habitat fragmentation, and recreation (see Factor A). Some of these 
threats may be exacerbated by the current and projected effects of 
climate change, and we have determined that the current and projected 
effects from climate

[[Page 55625]]

change are a direct threat to the Jemez Mountains salamander. Habitat 
drying affects salamander physiology, behavior, and viability; will 
affect the occurrence of natural events such as fire, drought, and 
forest die-off; and will increase the risk of disease and infection. 
Trends in climate change and drought conditions have contributed to 
temperature increases in the Jemez Mountains, with a corresponding 
decrease in precipitation. Because the salamander is terrestrial, 
constrained in range, and isolated to the higher elevations of the 
Jemez Mountains, continued temperature increases and precipitation 
decreases, exacerbated by climate change, could threaten the viability 
of the species over its entire range.
    The Act defines an endangered species as any species that is ``in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range'' and a threatened species as any species ``that is likely to 
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
within the foreseeable future.'' We evaluated whether the Jemez 
Mountains salamander is in danger of extinction now (i.e., an 
endangered species) or is likely to become in danger of extinction in 
the foreseeable future (i.e., a threatened species). The foreseeable 
future refers to the extent to which the Secretary can reasonably rely 
on predictions about the future in making determinations about the 
future conservation status of the species. A key statutory difference 
between a threatened species and an endangered species is the timing of 
when a species may be in danger of extinction (i.e., currently at a 
high risk of extinction), either now (endangered species) or in the 
foreseeable future (threatened species). A species that is in danger of 
extinction at some point beyond the foreseeable future does not meet 
the definition of either an endangered species or a threatened species.
    Because of the fact-specific nature of listing determinations, 
there is no single metric for determining if a species is ``in danger 
of extinction'' now. In the case of the Jemez Mountains salamander, the 
best available information indicates that a major range reduction has 
not happened. However large-scale habitat destruction or modification 
within the highly restricted habitat for the salamander has 
significantly affected the behavior and physiology of the species 
(including increased oxygen use, increased metabolism, increased 
desiccation, increased need to hydrate, and reduced opportunities to 
forage and mate) and has likely resulted in reductions in populations 
and in total numbers of individuals within its range. These losses are 
ongoing as habitat conditions necessary for Jemez Mountains salamander 
survival continue to deteriorate by become warmer and drier. Without 
substantial conservation efforts, this trend of habitat and population 
loss is expected to continue and result in an elevated risk of 
extinction of the species.
    Many of the threats faced by the species would not have 
historically been significant (such as wildfire), but because the 
entire ecological system in which this species occurs has been 
significantly altered, and many of the threats are interrelated, when 
wildfire occurs, it leaves behind a landscape-sized scar of highly 
modified, possibly unusable habitat for the Jemez Mountains salamander. 
The Jemez Mountains salamander completely relies on its environment and 
habitat to maintain physiological functions and to stay alive. All 
habitat for the Jemez Mountains salamander has been modified to its 
existing condition, and either has been burned with large-scale high-
severity wildfire or is at risk of doing so. Effects from climate 
change are also resulting in warming and drying of all Jemez Mountains 
salamander habitat. Because Jemez Mountains salamanders are reliant on 
their habitat for survival, and all habitat is currently warming, 
drying, and either at risk of burning in wildfire, or has burned in 
wildfire, all extant Jemez Mountains salamanders are vulnerable. Since, 
part of the life-history requirements (including mating, foraging, and 
dispersal) necessitate the use of above ground habitat and the above 
ground habitat is impacted by one or more threats, no resilient 
populations currently exist to support persistence of the Jemez 
Mountains salamander. Consequently, it is in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range now, and appropriately meets the definition 
of an endangered species (i.e., in danger of extinction).
    In conclusion, after a review of the best available scientific and 
commercial information as it relates to the status of the species and 
the five listing factors, we find that the Jemez Mountains salamander 
is presently in danger of extinction now based on the severity of 
threats currently impacting the salamander. The threats are both 
current and expected to continue in the future, and are significant in 
that they limit all behavioral and physiological functions, including 
breathing, feeding, and reproduction and reproductive success, and 
extend across the entire range of the species. This meets the 
definition of endangered. Therefore, on the basis of the best available 
scientific and commercial information, we are listing the Jemez 
Mountains salamander as an endangered species, in accordance with 
sections 3(6) and 4(a)(1) of the Act.
    Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may 
warrant listing if it is endangered or threatened throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. The Jemez Mountains is highly 
restricted in its range, and the threats to its survival occur 
throughout its range and are not restricted to any particular 
significant portion of their range. The salamander is in danger of 
extinction now, and thus meets the definition of endangered, and not 
threatened. Accordingly, our assessment and determination applies to 
the species throughout its entire range.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened species under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation by Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act encourages cooperation with the 
States and requires that recovery actions be carried out for all listed 
species. The protection required by Federal agencies and the 
prohibitions against certain activities are discussed, in part, below.
    The primary purpose of the Act is the conservation of endangered 
and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The 
ultimate goal of such conservation efforts is the recovery of these 
listed species, so that they no longer need the protective measures of 
the Act. Subsection 4(f) of the Act requires the Service to develop and 
implement recovery plans for the conservation of endangered and 
threatened species. The recovery planning process involves the 
identification of actions that are necessary to halt or reverse the 
species' decline by addressing the threats to its survival and 
recovery. The goal of this process is to restore listed species to a 
point where they are secure, self-sustaining, and functioning 
components of their ecosystems.
    Recovery planning includes the development of a recovery outline 
shortly after a species is listed and preparation of a draft and final 
recovery plan. The recovery outline guides the immediate implementation 
of urgent recovery actions and describes the process to be used to 
develop a recovery plan. Revisions of the plan may be done to address 
continuing or new threats to

[[Page 55626]]

the species, as new substantive information becomes available. The 
recovery plan identifies site-specific management actions that set a 
trigger for review of the five factors that control whether a species 
remains endangered or may be downlisted or delisted, and methods for 
monitoring recovery progress. Recovery plans also establish a framework 
for agencies to coordinate their recovery efforts and provide estimates 
of the cost of implementing recovery tasks. Recovery teams (composed of 
species experts, Federal and State agencies, nongovernmental 
organizations, and stakeholders) are often established to develop 
recovery plans. When completed, the recovery outline, draft recovery 
plan, and the final recovery plan will be available on our Web site 
(https://www.fws.gov/endangered), or from our New Mexico Ecological 
Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Implementation of recovery actions generally requires the 
participation of a broad range of partners, including other Federal 
agencies, States, tribal, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, 
and private landowners. Examples of recovery actions include habitat 
restoration (e.g., restoration of native vegetation), research, captive 
propagation and reintroduction, and outreach and education. The 
recovery of many listed species cannot be accomplished solely on 
Federal lands because their range may occur primarily or solely on non-
Federal lands. To achieve recovery of these species requires 
cooperative conservation efforts on private, State, and tribal lands.
    Once this species is listed, funding for recovery actions will be 
available from a variety of sources, including Federal budgets, State 
programs, and cost share grants for non-Federal landowners, the 
academic community, and non-governmental organizations. In addition, 
pursuant to section 6 of the Act, the State of New Mexico would be 
eligible for Federal funds to implement management actions that promote 
the protection or recovery of the Jemez Mountains salamander. 
Information on our grant programs that are available to aid species 
recovery can be found at https://www.fws.gov/grants.
    Please let us know if you are interested in participating in 
recovery efforts for the Jemez Mountains salamander. Additionally, we 
invite you to submit any new information on this species whenever it 
becomes available and any information you may have for recovery 
planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies to evaluate their 
actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the 
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed for listing or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is 
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal 
agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out 
are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species or 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action 
may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible 
Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
    Federal agency actions within the species habitat that may require 
conference or consultation or both as described in the preceding 
paragraph include landscape restoration projects (e.g., forest 
thinning); prescribed burns, wildland-urban-interface projects; forest 
silvicultural practices; other forest management or landscape-altering 
activities on Federal lands administered by the National Park Service 
(Bandelier National Monument), Valles Caldera National Preserve, and 
the Department of Energy (Los Alamos National Laboratory), and USFS; 
issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act permits by the Army Corps of 
Engineers; and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the 
Federal Highway Administration.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(2) of the Act, codified at 
50 CFR 17.21 for endangered wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any 
person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take 
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship 
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or 
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. 
Under the Lacey Act (18 U.S.C 42-43; 16 U.S.C 3371-3378), it is also 
illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such 
wildlife that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to 
agents of the Service and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving endangered and threatened wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.62 for endangered plants, and at 17.72 for threatened plants. With 
regard to endangered wildlife, a permit must be issued for the 
following purposes: for scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation 
or survival of the species and for incidental take in connection with 
otherwise lawful activities.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be 
prepared in connection with listing a species as an endangered or 
threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We published a 
notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal 
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and 
Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to tribes.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rule is available 
on the Internet at https://www.regulations.gov or upon request from the 
Field Supervisor, New Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see 
ADDRESSES section).

Authors

    The primary authors of this document are the staff from members of 
the New

[[Page 55627]]

Mexico Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; 4201-4245; unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h), add an entry for ``Salamander, Jemez Mountains'' 
in alphabetical order under Amphibians to the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife, to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
            Amphibians
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Salamander, Jemez Mountains......  Plethodon             U.S. (NM)..........  U.S. (NM)..........  E                       819           NA           NA
                                    neomexicanus.
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: August 26, 2013.
 Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-21583 Filed 9-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P