Vol. 76 Tuesday, No. 196 October 11, 2011

Part II

Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Tehachapi Slender Salamander as Endangered or Threatened; Proposed Rule

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62900 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Background solicited information to be provided in connection with the status review. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered We contracted with Robert Hansen, a Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) recognized scientific expert on the 50 CFR Part 17 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, Tehachapi slender salamander, editor of for any petition to revise the Federal the Herpetological Review, and author Lists of Endangered and Threatened [FWS–R8–ES–2008–0087] of peer-reviewed papers on the species Species that contains substantial (Hansen 1980, pp. 1–50; Hansen and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife scientific or commercial information Stafford 1994, pp. 252–255; Hansen and and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a that listing the species may be Wake 2005, pp. 693–695), to develop a Petition To List the Tehachapi Slender warranted, we make a finding within 12 technical report (Hansen 2009, pp. 1– Salamander as Endangered or months of the date of receipt of the 30) addressing the species’ range and Threatened petition. In this finding, we will distribution relative to current and determine that the petitioned action is: foreseeable land uses to assess effects of AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) habitat alteration on the salamander. Interior. warranted, but the immediate proposal This notice constitutes our 12-month ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition of a regulation implementing the finding on the February 28, 2006, finding. petitioned action is precluded by other petition to list the Tehachapi slender pending proposals to determine whether salamander as threatened or SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and species are threatened or endangered, endangered. and expeditious progress is being made Wildlife Service (Service), announce a Species Description 12-month finding on a petition to list to add or remove qualified species from the Tehachapi slender salamander the Federal Lists of Endangered and Like others in the Family (Batrachoseps stebbinsi) as threatened Threatened Species. Section 4(b)(3)(C) Plethodontidae (the lungless or endangered, under the Endangered of the Act requires that we treat a salamanders), the Tehachapi slender Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). petition for which the requested action salamander breathes through its smooth, After review of all available scientific is found to be warranted but precluded thin skin. Species in the Batrachoseps and commercial information, we find as though resubmitted on the date of genus tend to have elongated bodies and that listing the Tehachapi slender such finding, that is, requiring a tails, and shorter limbs. Compared to salamander is not warranted. However, subsequent finding to be made within other species of attenuate Batrachoseps, we ask the public to submit to us any 12 months. We must publish these 12- the Tehachapi slender salamander has a new information that becomes available month findings in the Federal Register. relatively broad head, long legs, large feet, long toes, a robust body, and a concerning threats to the Tehachapi Previous Federal Actions slender salamander or its habitat at any short tail. Both front and hind feet time. On February 28, 2006, we received a contain four toes and are more webbed than other Batrachoseps species. The DATES: The finding announced in this petition, dated February 17, 2006, from Mr. Jeremy Nichols of Denver, Colorado, dorsal color may be dark red, brick red, document was made on October 11, or light or dark brown with light-tan or 2011. requesting that the Tehachapi slender salamander (Batrachoseps stebbinsi) be black patches that often form a band- ADDRESSES: This finding is available on listed as threatened or endangered in like pattern. The Tehachapi slender the Internet at http://www.regulations. accordance with section 4 of the Act. salamander is characterized by 19 gov at Docket Number FWS–R8–ES– The petition clearly identified itself as intercostal grooves on each side of the 2008–0087 and at http://www.fws.gov/ such and contained the name, address, body (Brame and Murray 1968, p. 19). ventura. Supporting documentation we and signature of the petitioning private The Tehachapi slender salamander is used in preparing this finding is citizen, as required in 50 CFR 424.14(a). sexually dimorphic. The average size of available for public inspection, by adult females is 2.24 inches (in) (57 In response to the petition, we sent a millimeters (mm), and adult males appointment, during normal business letter to the petitioner dated April 20, hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife average 2.13 in (54 mm) snout-to-vent 2006, explaining that we would not be length. Brame and Murray (1968, p. 18) Service, Ventura Fish and Wildlife able to address the petition until fiscal Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, first described the species in 1968. year 2007. The reason for this delay was The Tehachapi slender salamander Ventura, CA 93003; telephone 805–644– that responding to existing court orders 1766; facsimile 805–644–3958. Please belongs in the genus Batrachoseps, one and settlement agreements for other of 25 genera in the subfamily submit any new information, materials, listing actions expended our listing or questions concerning this finding to Bolitoglossinae (Jockusch in litt. 2009a, funding. We also concluded in our April p. 2; Jockusch in litt. 2009b, p. 1). The the above address or via electronic mail 20, 2006, letter that emergency listing of (e-mail) at [email protected]. subgenus Batrachoseps (under the the Tehachapi slender salamander was genus Batrachoseps) consists of four FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: not warranted. We were delayed in groups or clades (a nontaxonomic rank Michael McCrary, Listing and Recovery responding to the petition until funding based on genetic or morphological Program Coordinator, U.S. Fish and became available. comparisons) comprising 16 species and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and On April 22, 2009, the Service issued a few undescribed taxa all of which are Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) by its 90-day finding (74 FR 18336), adapted to fossorial (subterranean) and telephone at 805–644–7166; or by concluding that the petition presented semifossorial existences (Jockusch and facsimile at 805–644–3958. Persons who substantial scientific or commercial Wake 2002, pp. 362, 380). The four use a telecommunications device for the information to indicate that listing the groups are attenuatus, nigriventris, deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Tehachapi slender salamander may be pacificus, and relictus (Jockusch in litt. Information Relay Service (FIRS) at warranted. We also announced the 2009a, p. 1). The Tehachapi slender 800–877–8339. initiation of a status review to determine salamander belongs in the nigriventris SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: if listing the species is warranted and group, along with the black-bellied

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62901

slender salamander (B. nigriventris), elevations (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. Kuchta 2005, p. 266). The only gregarious slender salamander (B. 694). These salamanders retreat to documented predator of the Tehachapi gregarious), and Kern Canyon slender underground refugia (up to 3 feet (ft) slender salamander that we know of is salamander (B. simatus) (Jockusch in (0.9 meters (m)) below the surface) a ring-necked snake (Diadophis litt. 2009c, p. 1; Jockusch and Wake during the warmer months or during punctatus) (Burkhardt et al. 2001, p. 2002, p. 363). Based on genetic studies, periods of freezing temperatures and are 245). We are not aware of any the Tehachapi slender salamander is believed to aestivate during this time information about parasites or diseases considered to be closely related to the (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694; Hansen affecting this species or information Kern Canyon slender salamander in litt. 2009b, p. 1; Hansen 2010 pers. about symbiotic or mutualistic (Hansen and Stafford 1994, p. 252; comm.). interactions with other organisms. Jockusch and Wake 2002, p. 364). Specific information on the There are two known populations of reproductive biology and behavior of Habitat Characteristics Tehachapi slender salamander, the the Tehachapi slender salamander is Tehachapi slender salamanders are Caliente Canyon population and the unknown. There is no reported restricted to seasonally mesic Tehachapi Mountains population, both information on the size and age at microhabitats on north-facing slopes in of which are described in detail below sexual maturity, nesting behavior, otherwise dry regions of the Tehachapi under the Range and Distribution clutch size, or timing of egg hatching for Mountains and the southern end of the section. We examined information the Tehachapi slender salamander Sierra Nevada Mountains (Hansen and suggesting that the two populations may (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694). Wake 2005, p. 694). Suitable habitat represent separate species. We However, Hansen and Wake (2005, p. consists typically of shaded, north- evaluated information discussed by 694) suggest that eggs are likely laid facing slopes containing talus substrates Jockusch (1996, pp. 1–231) and underground well below the talus and or areas with considerable leaf litter or Jockusch and Wake (2002, pp. 361–391), leaf litter material. The Tehachapi downed wood (Jockusch and Wake regarding the large amount of genetic slender salamander cannot dig its own 2002, p. 362; Hansen and Wake 2005, p. and morphological differences between burrows, so it uses spaces dug in leaf 693; Hansen 2009, p. 2). These heavily the two populations (Nichols 2006, p. litter or talus by other animals, or spaces shaded, north-facing slopes generally 5). Hansen and Wake (2005, p. 694) also that result from decaying vegetation occur on the lower reaches of a hillside suggest that the two may eventually be (Hansen 2009b, pers. comm.; Hansen where sun exposure is the most limited classified as separate species based on and Stafford 1994, p. 254). Jockusch and (Hansen in litt. 2010b, p. 1). The species genetic and morphological data. Mahoney (1997, p. 699) suggest that has most often been found to occur on However, based on subsequent genetic oviposition in Tehachapi slender slopes with limestone talus, scattered research, Jockusch (in litt. 2009d, p. 1) salamanders occurs after the first rains rocks, fissured rock outcrops, fallen concluded that considering the two in the fall or winter, and only once per logs, leaf litter under tree canopy cover populations separate species was not season, based on their observations of where moisture and humidity are high warranted at this time. Hansen (2009a, oviposition occurring in November in compared to nearby sites with reduced pers. comm.) believes there are not the related black-bellied slender canopy cover or greater slope exposure enough differences between the two salamander. (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694; populations to classify them as separate Little is known about the behavior of CaliforniaHerps 2008, p. 2; Hansen species or subspecies. Therefore, we Batrachoseps species, but feeding and 2009, p. 2). The species was also conclude at this time that the two reproduction are assumed to occur recently found on an atypical, more populations of Tehachapi slender during brief periods of surface activity exposed north-facing slope in a new salamanders are a single species. (Hansen in litt. 2009b, p. 1). The low location (Silver Creek) in the northeast metabolic rate of plethodontid corner of its range under large rocks; Biology and Natural History salamanders enables them to sustain talus mixed with soil; logs; and in some Western species of plethodontid themselves on their energy reserves cases, dead Yucca spp. plants (family salamanders, including the Tehachapi when surface conditions are not suitable Asparagaceae) (see Figure 1) (Sweet in slender salamander, are completely for foraging. They are believed to be litt. 2011, p. 1). Habitat that meets the terrestrial amphibians and do not need inactive (i.e., do not forage) while requirements of the Tehachapi slender standing or flowing water for any stage underground (Feder 1983, pp. 304–306). salamander in the two areas (Caliente of their life cycle (Zug et al. 2001, p. The Tehachapi slender salamander has Canyon and Tehachapi Mountains 383). Because their entire life cycle been observed to capture prey, areas; see ‘‘Range and Distribution’’ occurs on land, they are vulnerable to consisting of small terrestrial section below) where the species occurs desiccation. Thus, the Tehachapi invertebrates, with its projectile tongue is sparse and patchily distributed. These slender salamander, like other (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694). patches of suitable habitat are plethodontids, requires moist Hansen and Stafford suggest that the dominated by Aesculus californica microhabitats. As such, its above- diet of the Tehachapi slender (California buckeye), Platanus racemosa surface activity is greatly reduced salamander is likely to be similar to (California sycamore), and Quercus outside of the rainy season (Feder 1983, other related Batrachoseps, consisting of chrysolepis (canyon live oak). Based on pp. 295–296). small spiders, mites, and insects survey photographs (Sweet 2011, pp. 8– Peak periods of surface activity for the (Hansen and Stafford 1994, p. 254). 10), the atypical Silver Creek location in nocturnal Tehachapi slender Predators of this species are not well the northeast corner of the range also salamander occur during the rainy known. Other salamander species are includes abundant junipers (Juniperus season, typically February through known to be preyed upon by birds, such californica). The species has been March, but may occur earlier depending as American crows (Corvus documented to occur from 1,804 to on the timing of late-fall/early-winter brachyrhynchos), common ravens 4,825 ft (550 to 1,471 m) in altitude rains (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694; (Corvus corax), and jays, as well as throughout its range (Hansen 2009, p. 2; Hansen in litt. 2009a, p. 2). During raccoons (Procyon lotor), skunks, Sweet in litt. 2011, p. 1). wetter years, peak activity may extend opossums (Didelphis virginiana), and Movement patterns, individual to April or early May at higher snakes (HumboldtHerps 2010, p. 2; dispersal, and home range size of the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62902 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Tehachapi slender salamander are museum specimen occurrences, and available aerial photographs, we unknown. However, genetic studies of confirmed reports of occurrences from determined the boundaries of each related Batrachoseps species (Jockusch Jockusch and Wake (2002), other species occupied segment based on the up- and 1996, p. 80; Hansen and Wake 2005, p. experts, and the California Natural downcanyon extent of vegetation that 694) indicate that female movement is Diversity Database (CNDDB 2007). This could support the species. We have not limited (Jockusch and Wake 2002, p. report also documents current land uses calculated the actual acreage of each 381). Jockusch (1996, p. 80) observed and land ownership at sites where this canyon segment because we cannot genetic differences over short species has been reported, assesses determine the actual width of the geographic distances (ranging from 1.6 habitat quality, and reviews potential suitable habitat, but in many cases it to 25 miles (mi) or 2.5 to 40 kilometers threats to the species based on its probably only extends about 50–100 ft (km)) within a population of a closely distribution and natural history. We also (15–30 m) upslope from the canyon related species, the black-bellied slender report new locations not included in bottom. Instead, each occupied segment salamander, indicating that the females any of the above that were recently includes the approximate linear extent had not moved between populations for found by Christopher Evelyn and Dr. of contiguous suitable habitat within millions of years. No quantitative Sam Sweet (University of California, each canyon that has documented studies on movement patterns, Santa Barbara) in the northeastern occurrences. individual dispersal, and home range portion of the species’ range (Sweet The known range of the Caliente size have been completed for species of 2011, pp. 8–10; Sweet in litt. 2011, p. 1). Canyon population is based on 18 Batrachoseps except for the California The current known range of the occurrences (including 4 newly slender salamander (Batrachoseps Tehachapi slender salamander consists discovered occurrences) and consists of attenuatus). Anderson (1960, p. 369) of two disjunct areas that are separated 5 canyon segments totaling observed that the California slender by approximately 13 mi (21 km) of dry, approximately 9 linear mi (14.5 km) salamander movements were limited to rugged, mountainous terrain. We (Figure 1), including: Caliente Canyon approximately 5 ft (2 m), and Maiorana consider these two disjunct areas as (14 occurrences, 7 linear mi (11.3-km)), (1978, p. 1020) observed that separate populations, the Caliente Tollgate Canyon (1 occurrence, 0.8 individuals of the same species stay Canyon and Tehachapi Mountains linear mi (1.3 km)), Indian Creek (1 within a 6.6-ft (2-m) area, on average. populations. The Caliente Canyon occurrence, 0.5 linear mi (0.8 km)), an Based on the limited data on the population is located northeast of State unnamed canyon south of Indian Creek California slender salamander, we infer Highway 58 and west of the Piute (1 occurrence, 0.4 linear mi (0.6 km)), Mountains, and lies in the southern that individual Tehachapi slender and Silver Creek (1 occurrence, 0.3 foothills of the Sierra Nevada salamanders are likely to stay within an linear mi (0.5 km)). area of a few meters during their Mountains, south of Kern Canyon. The Tehahcapi slender salamanders were lifetime (Hansen in litt. 2009b, p.1; Tehachapi Mountains population is first discovered in Caliente Canyon in Hansen in litt. 2009c, p. 1). located southwest of State Highway 58 and extends to Fort Tejon State Historic 1967 (Brame and Murray 1968, p. 18), Range and Distribution Park (SHP) (Hansen and Stafford 1994, and Hansen included Caliente Canyon The Tehachapi slender salamander is p. 255). This population lies in the is his 2008 habitat assessment (Hansen endemic to Kern County, California Tehachapi Mountains and the San 2009, pp. 1–30). However, Hansen’s (Stebbins 2003, p. 185; Hansen and Emigdio/Mount Pinos area of Kern 2009 report does not include any Wake 2005, p. 693). The general range County, on both sides of Interstate information on the four new of the species in the Tehachapi Highway 5. Until recently, the species occurrences outside Caliente Canyon, Mountains extends from the Piute was known from 21 occurrences (from which were discovered in 2011. The 14 Mountains in the north to Fort Tejon northeast to southwest), 14 in Caliente occurrences in Caliente Canyon closely State Historic Park (SHP) in the south. Canyon, 6 in the Tehachapi Mountains follow Caliente Creek between the Since the publication of our 90-day (including 5 on Tejon Ranch and 1 on junction of Bealville Road and finding (74 FR 18336; April 26, 2009), Fort Tejon SHP), and 1 near Highway 58 California Bodfish Road (10 mi (16 km) we have obtained additional data (Tehachapi Pass location, see Figure 1 west of Loraine) and the unincorporated regarding the distribution of the below) (Hansen 2009, pp. 8–10; ICF community of Loraine (see Figure 1). Tehachapi slender salamander. In this Jones and Stokes 2009, p. 4.4–156 and Caliente Canyon runs roughly from east finding, we have updated the Figure 4.4–8). The 21 previously known to west and has a number of seasonally description of the distribution of the occurrence records span a period from moist areas on the steep north-facing Tehachapi slender salamander 1957 through 2007; most recorded slopes bordering Caliente Canyon Road. presented in the 90-day finding to occurrences are on private land. In Tehachapi slender salamander habitat reflect the best available scientific addition to the 21 previously known in Caliente Canyon is patchily information. As stated above, we relied occurrences, Christopher Evelyn and Dr. distributed and discontinuous because extensively on Hansen’s technical report Sam Sweet found 4 new locations in the slope aspect throughout the canyon on the Tehachapi slender salamander in northeastern portion of the species’ varies as a result of the natural bends in the preparation of this review because it range (Sweet 2011, pp. 1–13; Sweet in the canyon and the occurrence of side provides the most comprehensive litt. 2011, p. 1), bringing the total known canyons. Twelve of the 14 occurrences information on confirmed species occurrences to 25, including one that is (approximately 85 percent) in Caliente occurrences throughout the species’ extirpated. Canyon occur on private land and 2 range. An occurrence refers to a small We have defined the ranges of the two (approximately 15 percent) occur on patch of habitat (rather than a specific populations of the Tehachapi slender Bureau of Land Management (BLM) point location), where one or more salamander as the canyons with known land (Hansen 2009, p. 3). Suitable individuals of the species was observed occurrences. Based on the presence of at habitat for the species may also occur on and verified. Hansen’s 2009 report least one known occurrence, we infer north-facing slopes of unnamed side incorporates his past work, information that the habitat up- and downcanyon canyons that stem from Caliente Canyon gathered from the September 2008 from the occurrence is likely to be (Hansen 2008a, b, pers. comm.; Sweet in habitat assessment, all vouchered suitable and occupied. By using the best litt. 2009, p. 2).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62903

Information is limited for the four there (Sweet 2011, pp. 1–13), the habitat facing slope, it is atypical for the species newly discovered occurrences of the in the vicinity of the occurrences in in that it is more exposed than other Caliente Canyon population at this time. Tollgate Canyon, Indian Creek, and the occurrences, with Juniperus california The new occurrences range from about unnamed canyon south of Indian Creek and Pinus spp. (pines) predominating 5.75 to 7 mi (9.3 to 11.3 km) south and is typical of Tehachapi slender instead of Quercus chrysolepis and southeast of the the easternmost salamanders—steep, shaded, tree- Aesculus californica. Three of the four occurrence in Caliente Canyon (Figure covered, north-facing slopes, with talus new occurrences for the Caliente 1). Based on photos of the new areas and fallen logs. Although the Silver Canyon population occur on private taken when the species was first found Creek occurrence is also on a north- land and one occurs on BLM land.

The Tehachapi slender salamander The known range of the Tehachapi (0.8 km)); and the recently discovered was reported along the Tehachapi Pass, Mountains population, which is based occupied location (Dudek 2008, p. 5–14) 8 mi (13 km) southwest of Caliente on six occurrences (Dudek 2008, p. 5– at Monroe Canyon (one occurrence; Canyon in 1957, but has not been 14; Hansen 2009, pp. 9–10), consists of approximately 1.5 linear mi (2.3 km). reported in that area since (Hansen five canyon segments totaling Hansen (2009, p. 4) described the 2009, p. 9). At the Tehachapi Pass approximately 10.2 linear mi (16.4 km). occupied habitat on Tejon Ranch (Bear location (see Figure 2), the species was Four of the five occupied canyons (five Trap Canyon specifically) as having observed on the north side of Black of the known occurrences) within this moist, loamy soil on north-facing talus Mountain, between State Highway 58 region are on the privately owned Tejon slopes with canyon live oak, Quercus and the Southern Pacific rail line Ranch (see Figure 2), and span from kelloggii (black oak), Q. wislizenii Tejon Canyon in the northeast, to (Hansen 2009, pp. 3, 21). We have no (interior live oak), Calocedrus decurrens Monroe Canyon 17.5 linear mi (28.2 km) (incense cedar) and Aesculus californica information to indicate whether surveys to the southwest. The occupied canyons (California buckeye). have been conducted for this species in on Tejon Ranch are in Bear Trap Canyon this area since 1957. Because we do not (two occurrences; approximately 2.7 The one confirmed occurrence in the have current information indicating that linear mi (4.3 km)); the Tejon Creek Fort Tejon SHP area (approximately 0.5 the species still occupies this area, drainage of Tejon Canyon (one linear mi (0.8 km)) is located on the whether that habitat still remains, or occurrence; approximately 5 linear mi west side of Interstate Highway 5, which population this occurrence (8 km)); an unnamed canyon near the approximately 3 mi (4.8 km) northwest belongs to, we do not discuss this Edmond G. Brown Tunnel between Bear of the unincorporated community of historical occurrence further in this Trap Canyon and Geghus Ridge (one Lebec, California (Hansen 2009, p. 10; review. occurrence; approximately 0.5 linear mi CNDDB 1997).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP11OC11.005 62904 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

A few reports of Tehachapi slender Forest System (U.S. Forest Service 2009, Canyon within Fort Tejon SHP near the salamanders have not been confirmed or p. 2). Based on this information, we border with Los Padres National Forest; have been determined to be other currently do not believe that the range and (5) the northern slopes of the San species of slender salamander. In 1973, of the Tehachapi slender salamander Emigdio Mountains (e.g., Black Bob Richman reported the presence of extends beyond Kern County. Canyon) (Hansen 2009, pp. 5–6). Tehachapi slender salamander in Tulare Hansen (2009) did not provide a Potential Suitable Habitat County (Richman 1973, p. 97). Richman quantitative estimate of potential stated that two adult specimens fitting Although we do not include any habitat. Subsequent to Hansen’s 2009 the description of the Tehachapi slender potentially suitable habitat outside the report, Indian Creek has been found to salamander were found under a Pinus canyons that are known to be occupied be occupied by the salamander (Sweet jeffreyi (Jeffrey pine) log on an east- for the reasons described below, in litt., p. 1). facing slope in the Sequoia National researchers have speculated that In addition to Hansen’s work, Dr. Forest, Tulare County, California. In a suitable habitat occurs in other canyons Sweet identified suitable habitat in 1980 report to the State of California and that other canyons may be several tributary canyons extending Resources Agency, Hansen (1980, p. 38) occupied. During his 2008 habitat south of Caliente Canyon (Sweet in litt. disagreed with Richman’s claim that the assessment, Hansen (pers. comm. 2008b; 2009, pp. 1–2). Within this estimated range of the Tehachapi slender 2009, pp. 5–6) identified additional 30-square-mile (7,770-ha) area, Sweet salamander extended to Tulare County. areas of suitable habitat along Caliente (in litt. 2009, pp. 1–2) described the Based on his own collections at the site Creek Road between the junction of presence of steep, north-facing slopes described by Richman, Hansen (1980, p. Bodfish Road and the community of containing patches of oak trees, springs 38) stated that the specimens are Loraine, and in the southwest reaches of and seepages, and areas containing definitively not Batrachoseps stebbinsi, the Fort Tejon SHP in Johnson Canyon, talus. In his 2009 letter, Sweet (in litt. and later found that what Richman near the border with Los Padres 2009, p. 2) stated that he had seen the described was the first sighting of the National Forest. Hansen’s report Tehachapi slender salamander in this Kern Plateau salamander (B. robustus) identified five general areas containing area and suggested that they may be (AmphibiaWeb 2009, p. 4; Hansen and mesic north-facing slopes as potential widespread in these tributary canyons Wake 2005, p. 695; Wake et al. 2002, p. habitat for the Tehachapi slender stemming from Caliente Creek. 1016). BLM also reported the species salamander, including: (1) Along Indian However, at that time, Sweet was unable occurring in Tulare County (BLM 2009, Creek Road, southeast of Loraine in to provide the Service with specific p. 1); however, this report could not be Caliente Canyon; (2) drainages in occurrence information. Subsequently, confirmed (Verner in litt. 2008, p. 1). Cummings and Bear Valleys; (3) Christopher Evelyn and Dr. Sweet The U.S. Forest Service reported that canyons on Tejon Ranch connected to verified that at least a few of these there are no known occurrences of the Clear, Sycamore, Cedar, Chanac, Tunis, canyons are occupied (Sweet 2011, pp. species within the lands of the National and El Paso Creeks; (4) areas in Johnson 1–13).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP11OC11.006 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62905

Although other canyons may have (Monroe Canyon, Tollhouse Canyon, the public comment period that ended some habitat characteristics similar to Indian Creek, an unnamed canyon south June 22, 2009. those that are known to be occupied, we of Indian Creek, and Silver Creek) have Factor A: The Present or Threatened are not speculating here as to either been found. Destruction, Modification, or their suitability for Tehachapi slender Current Status Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or salamanders or the likelihood that they Range may be occupied. Although not studied The Tehachapi slender salamander in detail, the species’ habitat has been listed as threatened by the Under Factor A, we consider whether requirements appear to be highly State of California since June 1971 the Tehachapi slender salamander is specific (e.g., specific soil type; narrow (CDFG 2009, p. 7). The species has a threatened by the present or threatened range of soil moisture and temperature; global heritage ranking of G2, meaning destruction, modification, or substrate type and density; over- and that the species is classified by curtailment of its habitat or range by understory structure; presence of NatureServe as globally imperiled growth and development of human appropriate refugia) and habitat that (NatureServe 2009, p. 1; Hansen 2009, communities, road construction, may have the general appearance of p. 2). The Tehachapi slender mining, domestic livestock grazing, and being suitable (e.g., north-facing slope salamander is considered sensitive by flood control projects (Nichols 2006, p. with an overstory) may be lacking one BLM (2006, p. 2) and the U.S. Forest 6). We will evaluate each of these or more essential components. Also, the Service (2005, p. 78). threats for both the Caliente Canyon species has seldom been found when population and Tehachapi Mountains Summary of Information Pertaining to these areas of apparently suitable population of the Tehachapi slender the Five Factors habitat have been searched. For salamander. example, on April 5, 2009, as a followup Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) Like other plethodontids, Tehachapi to the 2009 report, Hansen (2009), with and implementing regulations at 50 CFR slender salamanders require moisture to assistance from Service biologists, part 424 set forth procedures for adding maintain the permeability of their skin conducted a survey for Tehachapi species to the Federal List of for gas exchange for respiration (Feder slender salamanders in San Emigdio Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 1983, p. 295). This physiological Canyon (within the privately owned An ‘‘endangered species’’ is any species requirement limits the time during Wind Wolves Preserve located on the in danger of extinction throughout all or which they are active at the soil’s south side of Interstate Highway 5 and a significant portion of its range. A surface to relatively brief, rainy periods northwest of Fort Tejon) and in Johnson ‘‘threatened species’’ is any species between the late fall and early spring Canyon of Fort Tejon SHP. Although which is likely to become an (Hansen 2009, p. 2; Hansen and Wake these areas included north-facing slopes endangered species within the 2005, p. 694). These salamanders forage that visually appeared similar to habitat foreseeable future throughout all or a and breed during periods of surface at known occurrences, no Tehachapi significant portion of its range. Under activity (Feder 1983, p. 296). During the slender salamanders were found. Also, section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species may remainder of the year, they retreat into during an extensive study on Tejon be determined to be endangered or talus or rocky substrates, or deep under Ranch, only one individual Tehachapi threatened based on any of the fallen logs or leaf litter, which provide slender salamander was found in the 77 following five factors: refuge from the climatic extremes of the drainages surveyed (Dudek 2008, p. 6– (A) The present or threatened Tehachapi and Sierra Nevada 5). The one individual that was found destruction, modification, or Mountains (Hansen 2009, p. 2). in Monroe Canyon is a new occurrence curtailment of its habitat or range; Given its physiology and life history, of the species. (B) Overutilization for commercial, this species may be negatively affected The lack of success in finding recreational, scientific, or educational by disturbances that remove or reduce salamanders in potentially suitable purposes; surface and soil moisture, relative habitat may simply be a function of the (C) Disease or predation; humidity, or suitable rocky and leafy species not being at the surface on the (D) The inadequacy of existing substrates. Disturbances that reportedly day the search was conducted. regulatory mechanisms; or impact Tehachapi slender salamanders However, it is also likely that the habitat (E) Other natural or manmade factors through habitat removal and was not actually occupied because it affecting its continued existence. degradation include residential and only had the most general habitat In considering what factors might commercial development, livestock requirements but was missing some constitute threats, we must look beyond grazing, road construction, mining, and important feature required by the the exposure of the species to the factor flood control projects (Hansen and species. Therefore, we believe that it is to determine whether the species Wake 2005, p. 693; Hansen and Stafford overly speculative to assume that responds to the factor in a way that 1994, pp. 254–255; Jennings 1996, pp. suitable habitat can be readily identified causes actual impacts to the species. If 928–929). Construction associated with and that habitat that appears to be there is exposure and the species residential and commercial suitable is in fact occupied. responds negatively, the factor may be development, new roads, and mines can a threat and we then attempt to remove habitat and can also cause Population Sizes and Trends determine how significant a threat it is. erosion that washes away the substrates The populations of occupied canyons If the threat is significant, it may drive of talus, woody debris, and leaf litter have not been determined, and we are or contribute to the risk of extinction of that the Tehachapi slender salamander not aware of any information on actual the species such that the species uses as refugia. The removal and population trends. The best available warrants listing as endangered or degradation of habitat can also cause information indicates that the number of threatened as those terms are defined by habitat fragmentation, which would occurrences has remained relatively the Act. require individuals to travel longer stable (Hansen 2009, pp. 3–5, 11, 12). In making our 12-month finding, we distances between suitable habitat One occurrence (Tehachapi Pass) has considered and evaluated all scientific patches during brief periods of suitable been extirpated as a result of road and commercial information in our files, climate to find mates. In addition, these construction, and five new occurrences including information received during activities, along with flood control

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62906 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

projects, may alter the hydrology of the Kuritsubo 2010 pers. comm.). Habitat near a residence. The area immediately mesic environment upon which the cover consisting of talus, leaf litter, and surrounding the point where the species species depends (Jennings 1996, pp. woody debris can be displaced by cattle had originally been found showed 928–929; Hansen and Wake 2005, p. and further removed by wind and water moderate to high localized disturbance; 693; CNDDB 2007). Our evaluation of erosion, potentially making the area less however, Hansen (in litt. 2010a, pp. 1– the extent and magnitude of potential hospitable for the species to burrow and 7; Hansen 2009, p. 11) indicated that effects caused by these activities is retain moisture for skin respiration. sufficient undisturbed habitat remained based on existing and expected land However, impacts from cattle within the in the area to support the species. uses within the species’ range. range of the Caliente Canyon population All of the confirmed occurrences in of the Tehachapi slender salamander are Caliente Canyon are adjacent to a two- Caliente Canyon Population typically localized, and are generally lane, paved road. The impacts of roads The main land use within the range low to moderate in degree (Hansen in on the Tehachapi slender salamander of the Caliente Canyon population of the litt. 2010a, pp. 1–7). In addition, are varied. Road construction, such as Tehachapi slender salamander is Tehachapi slender salamander construction of State Highway 58 (the livestock grazing (mainly cattle). occurrences in Caliente Canyon have section between the unincorporated Seventeen of the 18 confirmed persisted for decades in areas grazed by communities of Keene and Monolith occurrences of the Caliente Canyon cattle (Hansen 2009, pp. 3, 11). The was constructed during the 1960s), population of the Tehachapi slender same is likely true for the four newly Interstate Highway 5 (the section salamander are on lands used primarily discovered occurrences of the Caliente between Lebec and Fort Tejon was for livestock grazing. The remaining Canyon population. completed in 1964), and Caliente Creek occurrence is on a 34-ac (13.8-ha) parcel Although livestock grazing (mainly Road (date of construction unknown), with a private residence located at the cattle) occurs throughout Caliente likely removed Tehachapi slender base of a north-facing slope. In terms of Canyon, Hansen (2009) found a salamander habitat and likely caused land ownership, 15 occurrences are on moderate and localized level of habitat some habitat fragmentation (Cismowski private land, and 3 occurrences are on degradation from livestock grazing in in litt. 2010, p. 1; Hansen and Wake BLM land. the vicinity of only 3 of the 14 2005, p. 693; Hansen 2009b pers. In 2008, Hansen conducted a habitat occurrences in the canyon, but also comm.). Further, road run-off from assessment of the 14 occurrences in noted that sufficient habitat in good-to- precipitation may contribute to erosion Caliente Canyon (Hansen 2009, pp. 1– fair condition remained in these three of the talus, leaf litter, and small rocks 30) (Figure 1), which was prior to the areas to support the species. One of the that comprise salamander habitat. discovery of the other 4 occurrences that three occurrences that show a moderate Hansen noted that erosion was make up the Caliente Canyon level of habitat degradation is on BLM occurring, possibly from run-off from population. In his 2009 report, Hansen land that has been designated as a BLM the roads, in the vicinity of 2 of the 14 (pp. 11–12) noted moderate but grazing allotment. BLM manages the occurrences in Caliente Canyon (Hansen localized impacts at 4 of the 14 allotment in Caliente Canyon for 74 2009, p. 11). Erosion at one of the two occurrences in Caliente Canyon from animal unit months (AUMs) (i.e., 6 cows occurrences is associated with the main one or more of the following: Cattle graze throughout the allotment year- paved road through the canyon, while grazing, disturbance associated with a round or 74 cows graze in the allotment the other is from a narrow, unpaved residence on a private parcel, or erosion for 1 month per year) on 470 ac (190 ha) road (see below). The impact of erosion from a nearby road (Hansen in litt. within the Canyon (Kuritsubo in litt. in the vicinity of these two occurrences 2010a, pp. 1–3). The other 10 2009b, p. 1). Although the other was moderate and localized, with occurrences show minor to low levels of occurrence in Caliente Canyon on BLM sufficient remaining habitat nearby to disturbance from cattle grazing (Hansen land is also within the grazing continue to support the species (Hansen in litt. 2010a, pp. 1–5; Hansen 2009, p. allotment, it is considered to be in good in litt. 2010a, p. 3). We are not aware of 11). Hansen did point out that there was condition (Hansen 2009, p. 11). The any new roads planned for construction plenty of suitable habitat in good to fair third occurrence affected by grazing is within the range of this population. condition at all 14 occurrences that on private land (Hansen 2009, p. 11). Mining has occurred in the Caliente would adequately function for the The limited impact of cattle grazing on Creek region of Kern County since the species (Hansen in litt. 2010a, pp. 3–7; Tehachapi slender salamander habitat late 1800s (SRK Consulting 2002, p. 6). Hansen 2010 pers. comm.), and that in Caliente Canyon and elsewhere may The Zenda Gold Mine project is located overall, the habitat in the canyon had be because they are free ranging. Cattle on private land about 1 mi (1.6 km) from remained relatively stable since his first tend to graze the grass to a certain one of the occurrences of the Tehachapi visit in 1979 (Hansen 2009, p. 3). height and move on, unless their slender salamander in Caliente Canyon Livestock grazing could potentially movement is restricted to a corral or a (Hansen 2009, p. 11). Kern County impact Tehachapi slender salamander fenced area. According to Hansen (in issued a conditional use permit in 1990 habitat through trampling and erosion. litt. 2010a, p. 3; 2010 pers. comm.), to Equinox, the mine owner at the time, The degree of cattle-related degradation cattle throughout the range of the but the permit has since expired and has is directly related to the concentration species are free ranging, thus trampling not been renewed (Kuritsubo 2009b of cattle in a given area (Hansen in litt. and removal of vegetation to the point pers. comm.). Although the Zenda Gold 2010a, p. 3). Heavy trampling, of exposing bare ground to such an Mine is located on private land and is particularly during moist conditions, extent that it reduces, fragments, or sufficiently distant not to be a threat to could crush Tehachapi slender otherwise makes the habitat unsuitable any occurrences, Equinox’s mining salamander burrows and individual for the Tehachapi slender salamander is claim also extends onto BLM land in the salamanders during their surface not evident for any of the occurrences vicinity of one or more occurrences. activity, and could degrade habitat by throughout the Caliente Canyon Mining companies often hold claims for displacing and removing talus, logs, and population’s range. lands that they may not own that extend rocks that serve as critical components The fourth occurrence in Caliente beyond what they are currently mining of cover and habitat for the species Canyon (of the four with visible (Kuritsubo 2009c pers. comm.). For (Hansen 2010, 2008b, pers. comm.; disturbance) is located on private land example, these areas may be included to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62907

provide access to the actual mine site. than the two above occurrences. There or commercial development projects Although Equinox’s claim extends onto is also an unpaved road in the vicinity planned on parcels with occupied BLM land, they have not conducted any of the occurrence. However, there are no Tehachapi slender salamander habitat activity on the claim (Falcon in litt. paved roads, buildings, mines, or other are expected in the foreseeable future 2010, p. 1; SRK 2002, pp. 6–7). forms of activity in the area. The habitat (Kern County in litt. 2009, p. 9). No Although the claim is still in effect,the at the Silver Creek occurrence appears permit requests have been submitted to county permit for the mine has expired, to be in fair to good condition because Kern County to restart mining activity in and there are no mine plans filed with grazing occurs in the area. There is also the foreseeable future. Therefore, the BLM or Kern County under the State a building and an unpaved road near Caliente Canyon population of the Mining and Reclamation Action of 1975 this occurrence, but there are many Tehachapi slender salamander and its (SMARA) (Falcon in litt. 2010, p. 1; acres of contiguous salamander habitat habitat are not threatened with Kuritsubo 2009a pers. comm.). Based on surrounding the occurrence. destruction or curtailment now and are the best information available to us, In summary, grazing occurs on much not likely to be threatened with there are no active mines within the of the private land and the BLM lands destruction or curtailment in the future. range of this population. that are part of allotments in the range One of the two occurrences where of the Caliente Canyon population of the Tehachapi Mountains Population erosion has occurred is downslope from Tehachapi slender salamander. Of the For the reasons discussed above (see Last Chance Canyon Road, a narrow, 14 occurrences in Caliente Canyon, 4 ‘‘Potential Suitable Habitat’’ section), we unpaved road leading to the Zenda gold have experienced a moderate level of define the range of the Tehachapi mine. Hansen (2009, p.11) notes in his localized habitat disturbance. Of these Mountains population as consisting of 2009 report that construction of this four, one occurrence is moderately five occupied canyon segments totaling unpaved road eliminated some affected by cattle grazing; one on BLM 10.2 linear mi (16.4 km), which includes Tehachapi slender salamander habitat land is moderately affected by cattle six known occurrences. Four of the and is causing erosion of the remaining grazing and erosion from an adjacent canyon segments (five of the habitat in this area. Regardless of how paved road; one is moderately affected occurrences) are on the privately owned much the Last Chance Canyon Road is by grazing and erosion from an adjacent Tejon Ranch, and one is on Fort Tejon traveled, its mere presence may degrade narrow, unpaved mine road; and one is SHP. The main land uses that are Tehachapi slender salamander habitat moderately affected by a residence. presently occurring within the range of through erosion from wind and runoff Habitat with little or no disturbance is the Tehachapi Mountains population of from seasonal precipitation. Even so, present in the same areas as these four the Tehachapi slender salamander are Hansen (in litt. 2010a, p. 1) describes occurrences. The other 10 occurrences ranching, farming, and recreation the impacts to the habitat in the general show a minor-to-low level of (Hansen 2009, p. 12; ICF Jones and vicinity of the occurrence as moderate disturbance from cattle grazing (Hansen Stokes 2009, p. 1–4). Currently, specific and localized, but also noted that in litt. 2010a, pp. 1–4; Hansen 2009, p. land uses on the 270,365-ac (109,413- sufficient habitat in good-to-fair 11). The only activity in the areas where ha) Tejon Ranch include: farming and condition remained to support the the 4 new occurrences are located is irrigation systems; livestock grazing and species. There are no new mining roads cattle grazing, with the exception of a range management activities; film planned within the range of the Caliente single building near one of the production (which may involve Canyon population. occurrences. One of the newly temporary construction and use of The habitat at the four new discovered occurrences appears to be in explosives); repair, maintenance, and occurences of the Caliente Canyon good condition, with little sign of use of roads; maintenance and population has not been surveyed, and grazing. Another, which is on BLM land construction of utilities; and fence therefore the habitat assessment below that is not part of an allotment, appears construction and maintenance (Dudek is based on topographic maps, aerial to be in good condition. We classify the 2008, pp. 2–5 through 2–8). There is an photos, and survey photo records of other two occurrences as being in fair to existing 2-in (5-cm) water pipeline that each location (Sweet 2011, pp. 2–5 and good condition because there are signs overlaps with one confirmed occurrence 8–10). The habitat at the Tollgate of cattle grazing in their immediate near Pastoria Creek (Miller in litt. 2010b, Canyon occurrence appears to be in vicinity. There are no flood control p. 2). Because this pipeline is already in good condition, and although grazing projects occurring or planned within place, and it does not carry any likely occurs in the general area, there areas of known Tehachapi slender dangerous substance, we do not find the are no signs of disturbance from grazing. salamander occurrences in Caliente presence of this pipeline to threaten the An unpaved road is near the occurrence, Canyon. Tehachapi slender salamander or its but there are many acres of contiguous Based on the best information we habitat. The closest farming and salamander habitat surrounding the have, there are no planned or proposed irrigation activities are approximately occurrence. There are no paved roads, land use changes within the range of the 1,000 ft (305 m) from the occupied buildings, mines, or other forms of Caliente Canyon population of the portion of any canyon, and are, activity in the area. The habitat at the Tehachapi slender salamander. BLM’s therefore, far enough away not to unnamed canyon south of Indian Creek land use management plans are updated negatively affect slopes known to be occurrence appears to be in good every 15 to 20 years. Although the BLM occupied by Tehachapi slender condition. This occurrence is on BLM land containing three confirmed salamanders (Miller in litt. 2010b, p. 4). land that is not part of a grazing occurrences may be disposed of Possible impacts from cattle grazing allotment, and there are no signs of (meaning relinquished or sold) based on are as discussed for the Caliente Canyon disturbance from grazing. There are no the current plan, we have no population of the Tehachapi slender paved or unpaved roads, buildings, information to indicate that the land salamander. There are approximately mines, or other forms of activity in the will be sold or developed, or that the 14,500 head of cattle (Dudek 2008, p. 2– area. The habitat at the Indian Creek current grazing practices will change 5) grazing on 255,000 ac (103,195 ha) location appears to be in fair to good within the next 15 to 20 years (Miller in litt. 2010b, p. 5) of Tejon condition because grazing is more (Kuritsubo in litt. 2008, p. 1; Kuritsubo Ranch. Cattle grazing on Tejon Ranch readily apparent near this occurrence 2009b pers. comm.). No new residential are managed by seasonal rotation,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62908 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

following the availability of green been reported in occupied habitat. In 11) that would be constructed over pasture (Miller in litt. 2010a, p. 1). fact, Tehachapi slender salamander approximately 30 years. The TMV While Tejon Ranch’s livestock managers habitat on the ranch is reported to be in development envelope has been continually assess the availability of good habitat condition (Miller in litt. designed to completely avoid all feed, cattle are allowed to ‘‘drift’’ 2010b, p. 5; Hansen in litt. 2010a, p. 3). occupied habitat (i.e., occupied canyon through gates to different pastures Activities involving ground segments that make up the range of the where feed is available (Miller in litt. disturbance associated with species) and all known occurrences of 2010a, p. 1). This approach provides for construction include film production; the Tehachapi slender salamander. active management of free-range cattle repair, maintenance, and use of roads; Potentially, the closest development to grazing and avoids depletion of maintenance and construction of occupied habitat (i.e., the distance to the vegetation and significant damage of the utilities; and fence construction and boundary of the development envelope) habitat. maintenance. All of these activities is about 0.5 mi (0.8 km) at Monroe In his 2000 Tehachapi slender could result in the removal of habitat Canyon; all other occupied habitat is a salamander survey, Hansen documented cover (talus, leaf litter, and vegetation), minimum 1 mi (1.6 ha) from any that grazing, and to a limited extent digging, and removal of soil. Such potential development. Therefore, logging, were evident in occupied actions may result in habitat because the species is confined to the Tehachapi slender salamander habitat degradation, fragmentation, and the identified canyon segments based on the (Hansen 2009, p. 12). Specifically, injury or mortality of the Tehachapi biology of the species, and those canyon Hansen noted that grazing and logging slender salamander. All of these segments are outside of the proposed activities were evident along Bear Trap activities occur on a sporadic and development envelope, we do not Canyon in the area known to be limited basis. We have no evidence that expect that construction of the TMV occupied (Hansen 2009, p. 5). From they occur in areas of known Tehachapi project will result in the loss of any 1989 through 1994, Tejon Ranch had a slender salamander occurrences. occupied habitat. short-term timber harvesting operation Overall, current ranch-wide activities The proposed TMV development is targeting hardwoods for fuel on 367 ac on Tejon Ranch have not removed or expected to reduce the area grazed on (148.5 ha) in an area that includes Bear destroyed the Tehachapi slender the ranch by approximately 2 percent Trap Canyon (Vance in litt. 2009a, pp. salamander’s habitat within the range of (5,000 ac (2,023 ha) of the 255,000 ac 2, 8). To the best of our knowledge, no the Tehachapi Mountain population. (103,195 ha)), leaving approximately commercial logging activities are Cattle ranching has been practiced since 250,000 ac (101,171.4 ha) available to currently in operation and none are the late 1800s (Tejon Ranch 2011, p. 1), cattle (Miller in litt. 2010b, p. 5). The proposed on Tejon Ranch (Brauer in litt. and the presence of cattle has not number of cattle grazing on the ranch 2009, p.1; Vance in litt. 2009a, p. 1). modified the habitat in any noticeable would be commensurate with the Hansen reported that the habitat at all manner (Hansen 2009, p. 12). Fuel reduction in area available for grazing, of the then known four occurrences on management (vegetation thinning and and the reduction in available feed Tejon Ranch was in good condition, clearing) does not appear to have any (Miller in litt. 2010b, p. 5). As a result, despite the presence of grazing (Hansen visible effect on habitat. Wild turkeys we do not anticipate grazing impacts to 2009, p. 12). The fifth, and most and pigs cause localized habitat increase as a result of the proposed recently discovered occurrence in degradation, but apparently no TMV development. Monroe Canyon, is reported to be in degradation has been documented in Tejon Ranch has submitted a habitat habitat of good condition, with no this area. Finally, with the exception of conservation plan (HCP) to the Service, evidence of disturbance by cattle (Miller one existing water pipeline, farming, in support of an application for an in litt. 2010b, p. 4). irrigation, road repair and construction incidental take permit (ITP), that Wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) activities do not occur within occupied addresses 27 species, including the and pigs (Sus scrofa) were introduced habitat. Tehachapi slender salamander, that on Tejon Ranch in 1989 and 1990, Tejon Ranch plans to construct a potentially may be affected by the TMV respectively (Miller in litt. 2010b, p. 5; residential and commercial project and current ranch-wide uses, Dudek 2008, p. 3–4). There are development on their property called such as grazing, proposed to be covered approximately 1,200 turkeys and 5,000 Tejon Mountain Village (TMV). The under the ITP. The HCP covers pigs with free range on 255,000 ac TMV development envelope consists of approximately 141,886 ac (57,419 ha) of (103,195 ha) on Tejon Ranch (Miller in 7,860 ac (3,181 ha), within which a the 270,365-ac (109,413-ha) ranch litt. 2010b, pp. 4–5). Similar to livestock development footprint of up to 5,533 ac (Dudek 2008, p. 1–1). In addition to an grazing, wild pigs and turkeys could (2,239 ha) is proposed (Letterly in litt HCP, a draft Environmental Impact degrade and fragment Tehachapi 2010, p. 1). Although Tejon Ranch does Statement (EIS) on the HCP/ITP has slender salamander habitat by removing not plan to exceed the 5,533-ac (2,239- been circulated for public comment in talus and leaf litter, thus damaging the ha) footprint, the exact location for accordance with the National soil cover while foraging (Dudek 2008, construction could be anywhere within Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A pp. 5–26, 6–6). Pigs are known to be the 7,860-ac (3,181-ha) development Final Environmental Impact Report particularly destructive because of their envelope. (EIR) that focuses on the TMV project rooting and tilling behavior (Hansen The TMV development would include was certified by Kern County in 2009 to 2009, p. 4; Dudek 2008, p. 3–4). a total of 3,624 dwelling units, 464,920 comply with the California Although turkeys and pigs overlap with square feet (43,192 square meters) of Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). the Tehachapi population of the commercial development, two golf Dudek, the consultants preparing the Tehachapi slender salamander and have courses, an equestrian center, up to 750 HCP for Tejon Ranch, developed a the potential to destroy habitat through hotel rooms, and up to 350,000 square habitat suitability model to estimate scraping and rooting, we have no feet (32,516 square meters) of support impacts to each of the species addressed information to indicate that the uses (e.g., hotel lobby support services, in the plan. Based on the model, Dudek Tehachapi slender salamander is being food and beverage service, golf estimates up to 3,797 ac (1,537 ha) of threatened by these nonnative species; clubhouses, equestrian facilities, private suitable habitat for the Tehachapi and no damage from turkeys or pigs has recreation facilities) (Dudek 2008, p. 2– slender salamander may exist within the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62909

141,886-ac (57,419-ha) HCP boundary potentially suitable habitat in the (vegetation thinning and clearing) to (Dudek 2008, p. 5–14; ICF Jones and project area without the proposed reduce threats of fire outbreaks and Stokes 2008, p. 3.1–15). However, both mitigation measures sited in the EIR damage. Outside of the development Tejon Ranch and Dudek point out that (ICF Jones and Stokes 2009, pp. 4.4–102 areas, fuel management on 141,886 ac the habitat suitability model is and 4.4–156), could be significant to the (57,419 ha) of the 270,365-ac (109,413- constrained by broad assumptions and Tehachapi slender salamander. ha) ranch will consist primarily of cattle limited information on the species’ However, we believe the EIR’s grazing, which is used to maintain habitat characteristics; thus, the model conclusion overstates potential impacts vegetation at a certain height rather than likely overestimates the presence of to the Tehachapi slender salamander.. denude areas to bare ground or involve suitable habitat (Dudek 2008, pp. 5–14 Our reasons are based on the following: the removal of shrubs, branches, or and D–31). We concur with Dudek’s (1) The EIR for the proposed TMV trees. In addition to the existing grazing assessment of the model, and also project uses data from the Dudek habitat program, fuel management activities in believe it greatly overestimates the suitability model for the Tehachapi open space areas will include amount of suitable habitat; therefore, the slender salamander to estimate potential maintenance of the existing fuel break model should be considered a worst- impacts to the species, which as network (e.g., dirt/gravel roads), case approach for determining the previously discussed, overestimates the coordination with State or local amount of potentially affected habitat. amount of suitable habitat for the agencies for mowing or other fire As we discussed in the ‘‘Potential species on the ranch and likewise, protection measures along fire prone Suitable Habitat’’ section above, the overestimates the number of acres of areas (e.g., highways), and irrigation or species’ habitat requirements are highly suitable habitat potentially removed as vegetation clearing/mowing within 120 specific, and the Dudek model a result of the project; ft (36.6 m) surrounding existing overgeneralizes suitable habitat. For (2) the EIR analysis of impacts is structures (e.g., hunting cabins and example, we understand that the species based on the estimated number of acres ranch structures). Within the TMV is mostly found on north-facing slopes; of potentially suitable habitat within the development envelope, fuel however, the model includes east-facing boundaries of the proposed TMV management zones in open space may (90 degree) and west-facing (270 degree) development envelope, but the loss of extend 200 ft (61 m) from new slopes (Dudek 2008, p. D–31). Further, 108 ac (44 ha) actually represents only structures and fuel management will be information was not available for the 2.8 percent of the potentially suitable limited to thinning and nonirrigation model to account for the presence of habitat within the HCP boundary on the treatment. talus or leaf litter that the species uses ranch; Fuel management may remove some for refuge. The model also assumes (3) we have no indication that the 108 vegetation cover that maintains soil uniform distribution of habitat, whereas ac (44 ha) is occupied by the species; moisture in the mesic in reality, the species and its habitat are and microenvironments that provide patchily distributed in the landscape. (4) the development envelope does suitable habitat for the Tehachapi As a result, suitable habitat identified in not overlap with occupied habitat or slender salamander; however, it is not the model includes areas with known occurrences of the species. expected to affect any of the known unsuitable and inhospitable substrates Although known occupied habitat occupied habitat or occurrences. Tejon for the species, and thus the model will not be lost as a result of the Ranch proposes to develop a fuel overgeneralizes and overestimates the proposed development, development management plan, as described in the amount of Tehachapi slender will result in the fragmentation of HCP and Ranch-wide Land Use salamander habitat. For these reasons, potential modeled habitat in some Agreement, which, if the HCP is we have based our analysis mainly on canyons, and development will occur approved, will be subject to Service threats to the known occupied canyons. between some canyons. Although no review and approval to ensure However, we also recognize the salamanders were found in the canyons consistency with the conservation possibility that other suitable habitat within the development envelope measures described in the HCP (Dudek exists beyond these canyons and that during surveys, (Dudek 2008, p. 6–5), if 2008, pp. 2–5, 2–6; Agreement 2008, pp. some of these areas could potentially be in fact these canyons are actually 4, 20). Even without the fuel occupied, and, therefore, we have also occupied (based on a worst-case management plan, fuel management considered the results of the Dudek scenario considering best available activities are not expected to threaten suitability model as a worst-case information currently identifies this the existence of the Tehachapi slender approach to assessing the impacts of the area as unoccupied), salamander salamander now or in the foreseeable TMV project. movement up- and down-canyon could future because no occupied habitat is Although the TMV development be restricted in some areas. However, within 200 ft (61 m) of the TMV envelope avoids all habitat segments we we do not believe salamanders are development. consider to be occupied and all known capable of moving from canyon to If the TMV project is realized, new occurrences within the Tehachapi canyon because of the dry and rugged roads would be constructed to gain Mountains population (i.e., the discrete terrain that occurs between canyons. access to residential, commercial, and range of this portion of the species), the Therefore, we do not believe that the recreational areas. However, no new habitat suitability model for the proposed development will result in roads are planned near occupied habitat Tehachapi slender salamander estimates any further isolation of occupied habitat or known occurrences (ICF Jones and that 108 ac (44 ha) (16 percent) of the and the effects of fragmentation would Stokes 2009, Figure 3–14). The TMV 760 ac (308 ha) of potentially suitable be limited to the loss of potential project does propose to implement road habitat within the proposed TMV suitable habitat in some of the canyons improvements, including an existing development envelope would be that occur within the development ranch road in Bear Trap Canyon, which removed (ICF Jones and Stokes 2008, p. envelope and would only constitute an is one of the canyons occupied by the 4.1–31). The EIR for the proposed TMV impact to the species if those canyons salamander. This road may approach project states that short-term and long- were occupied. the very west end of occupied habitat in term impacts from construction, which A component of the TMV proposed the canyon, but it is located entirely on would result in the loss of 16 percent of project includes fuel management the flat, dry terrain below the occupied

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62910 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

north-facing slope and veers entirely out Even if under unusual circumstances, a development are expected to be at a of the canyon at that point. Any chemical release was to move past the sufficient distance from known improvements to the existing road are development envelope, the closest area occurrences as to not substantially expected to be limited because the road to occupied habitat is about 0.5 mi (0.8 impact the species. In addition, the will be used only as an Emergency km), and we do not believe that any Tehachapi slender salamander’s Access Road (ICF Jones and Stokes construction-related chemical release semifossorial behavior further limits the 2009, Figures 4.4–8 and 3–14; Marshall would be of sufficient quantity to negative impacts from edge effects, as in litt. 2009, p. 1), and any potential extend that far. the salamanders emerge to the surface impact to the salamander would be at Stormwater runoff resulting from during the rainy season. the very west end of occupied habitat. residential and commercial Increased human residential, This information is also consistent with development can increase water flows commercial, and recreational use of the the proposed development envelope due to an increase in impervious area will likely increase the number of being situated away from known surfaces and degrade water quality. potential predators (i.e., dogs, cats, Tehachapi slender salamander Although new roads would be limited to crows, and raccoons) in developed occurrences. Although new roads or the development envelope, and areas. Domestic cats are known to kill road improvements will not affect therefore at a sufficient distance from amphibians although the proportion of occupied habitat, they may cross known occurrences as to not have direct amphibians killed by cats compared to potentially suitable habitat (modeled effects on individual salamanders, we other species is very small (Woods et al. habitat) and may result in additional do not have information to accurately 2003, p. 1). Coyotes (Canis latrans) also fragmentation of potentially suitable estimate the frequency and intensity of occur in Kern County (see Ralls and habitat. impacts from runoff that could White 1995, Cypher and Spencer 1998, Although there will be no direct potentially affect Tehachapi slender Nature Alley 2010) and the Tejon Ranch impacts to the known range of the salamanders. According to the EIR, (ICF Jones and Stokes 2009, p. 4.4–432), Tehachapi Mountains population hydrological modifications from the and the abundance of cats and raccoons (which is based on six occurrences and TMV development involving has been found to be much lower where consists of five canyon segments stormwater runoff, siltation, and erosion coyotes occur (Crooks and Soule´ 1999, totaling approximately 10.2 linear mi are expected to be only minor (e.g., less p. 563). Crooks and Soule´ (1999, p. 565) (16.4 km) of known occupied habitat) than 5 percent) (ICF Jones and Stokes also found that a large number of from the proposed development of the 2009, p. 4.8–32; Letterly in litt. 2011, p. owners restrict their cats’ outdoor TMV project, the EIR lists the following 1). activity when coyotes were present. In potential indirect effects from Stormwater runoff from residential addition, the salamander’s exposure to construction as significant: Construction and commercial communities can predation is very limited due to its short dust; increased human activity from degrade water quality. However, water activity period above ground, thus we construction workers; construction- quality is not expected to experience a do not believe that the increased related noise, vibration, and lighting; noticeable change from existing levels of presence of predators would rise to the vehicle collisions, chemical releases, potential pollutants, including level of threatening the Tehachapi and hydrological modifications (ICF phosphorous, nitrates, ammonia, slender salamander now or in the Jones and Stokes 2009, p. 4.4–156); and copper, lead, and zinc (ICF Jones and foreseeable future. increased foot traffic and trail usage. Stokes 2009, p. 4.8–26; Letterly in litt. Foot traffic, increased use of trails, Given that this species is primarily 2011, p. 1). Therefore, degradation of and creation of new trails would also nocturnal and spends most of the year water quality from stormwater runoff is likely increase in the vicinity of up to 3 ft (0.9 m) underground (i.e., not expected to have a measurable residential development. Increased use during dry conditions), and given that impact on the Tehachapi slender of existing trails can result in erosion impacts from construction dust would salamander and its habitat. and new trails can eliminate habitat and be limited to above-ground surfaces, it In addition to the indirect effects cause erosion. The Tehachapi slender is unlikely to have a negative effect on identified in the TMV EIR, potential salamander habitat that would most the fossorial habitat of the species. indirect effects to the Tehachapi slender likely be affected would be in Monroe Impacts from increased human activity, salamander from increased human Canyon, which is the closest to the noise, vibrations, lighting, and vehicle presence on TMV include edge effects, development envelope (minimum of 0.5 collisions are not likely to have an effect changes in microclimate, and increased mi (0.8 km)). However, foot traffic in on the species’ population because they predation. Terrestrial salamanders are this area and any area of potential would be primarily limited to the impacted by edge effects. Microclimate suitable habitat would most likely be development envelope (Hansen 2010 conditions within forest edges of habitat along existing dirt roads and the flatter pers. comm.), which is at a minimum often exhibit higher air and soil terrain below or above the steep, talus- 0.5 mi (0.8 km) removed from any temperatures, lower soil moisture, and covered slopes occupied by the species. occupied Tehachapi slender salamander lower humidity compared to interior The fifth occupied canyon (one habitat and about 0.7 mi (1.1 km) from forested areas (Moseley et al. 2009, p. occurrence) of the Tehachapi Mountains any known occurrence. 426). Due to the physiological nature of population of the Tehachapi slender It is possible that chemical releases terrestrial salamanders, they are salamander is Johnson Canyon on Fort from a construction activity could affect sensitive to these types of microclimate Tejon SHP on the west side of the habitat, depending on the location and alterations, particularly to temperature Interstate Highway 5, adjacent to a time of year (e.g., during the rainy and moisture changes (Moseley et al. service road near the entrance to the season a release could be washed over 2009, p. 426). Generally, more Park (Hansen 2009, p. 28; CDPR 1989, a larger area, compared to a release in salamanders are observed with p. 175). The habitat at this occurrence the dry season); however, chemical increasing distance from some edge on Fort Tejon SHP shows minimal, if releases associated with construction types, which is attributed to reduced any, impacts. Fort Tejon SHP provides are expected to be restricted to the moisture and microhabitat quality for passive recreational activities development envelope and therefore, (Moseley et al. 2009, p. 426). However, including hiking, picnicking, camping, away from areas of occupied habitat. edge effects from the proposed TMV wildlife viewing, and educational

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62911

programs; no livestock grazing is potentially suitable habitat based on a Tehachapi Mountains population of the allowed. A narrow, paved road lies at habitat suitability model. However, the Tehachapi slender salamander, as the base of the occupied slope but does 108 ac (44 ha) are not known to be indirect, long-term potential effects from not cross any habitat, and there are no occupied by the species, and TMV is the TMV project would include an plans to widen or change this road. As designed to avoid all occupied habitat increase in human and introduced such, we do not believe that impacts and all known occurrences on Tejon predator presence on the Tejon Ranch. from the road (if any) threaten the Ranch. Indirect effects from For example, there may be an increase existence of the species in the area. No development (e.g., construction- in passive outdoor recreation by adults future land use changes on Fort Tejon associated impacts (lighting, noise, and children, and their pets (e.g., cats). SHP are planned that would affect the vibrations), increased human presence, The increase in human presence may Tehachapi slender salamander (Bylin in predators, soil erosion, runoff, and edge also increase the population of native litt. 2009, p. 1). effects) are not expected to rise to a amphibian predators, including In summary, based on the best point that would threaten the Tehachapi raccoons (Procyon lotor) and various scientific and commercial information Mountains population of the species. species of corvids (such as crows and available, we conclude that current We are also not aware of any existing or jays). However, coyotes may also be ranch-wide activities do not pose a planned flood control projects within more abundant near development, and threat to the Tehachapi Mountains the range of the species. For these as discussed previously, the abundance population of the Tehachapi slender reasons, we conclude that cattle grazing, of cats and raccoons has been found to salamander and its habitat, nor do we roads, mining, flood control projects, be much lower where coyotes occur anticipate such activities will pose a and commercial and residential (Crooks and Soule´ 1999, p. 563). The threat in the future. We also conclude development do not constitute a species’ nocturnal and subfossorial that the proposed TMV development substantial threat to the Tehachapi behavior may also reduce potential will avoid known occurrences of the slender salamander throughout its range impacts from predation by corvids. species and all occupied habitat (i.e., now and are not likely to pose a There are no reports of the Tehachapi occupied canyon segments that make up substantial threat in the future. slender salamander being infected with the range of the species) on Tejon Ranch Therefore, we conclude that the any disease. However, related species (see ‘‘Tehachapi Mountains Population’’ Tehachapi slender salamander is not have been found to suffer from section under Factor A) and is not likely threatened or endangered throughout all Chytridiomycosis, a skin infection. to cause any significant indirect impacts of its range by the present or threatened Chytridiomycosis is described as an to the Tehachapi Mountains slender destruction, modification, or epidermal infection of amphibians salamander or its habitat now or in the curtailment of its habitat or range. caused by the chytrid fungus future. (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). Factor B: Overutilization for Chytridiomycosis has been implicated Summary of Factor A Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or in mass mortalities, population Livestock grazing occurs throughout Educational Purposes declines, and extinctions of some the species’ range (with the exception of We do not have any information that amphibian species, but species appear Fort Tejon SHP), and depending on the overutilization for commercial, to vary in their susceptibility to the intensity, grazing has the potential to recreational, scientific, or educational disease (Blaustein et al. 2005, p. 1460; degrade Tehachapi slender salamander purposes is a threat to the Tehachapi Ouellet et al. 2005, p. 1431). The chytrid habitat through trampling, soil scraping, slender salamander. Therefore, we have fungus requires moisture for survival, and compaction, which can cause no information to suggest that the and is most likely transmitted to surface soil erosion and desiccation. Tehachapi slender salamander is amphibians by contact with infected However, habitat degradation in the threatened or endangered throughout all water or other amphibians (Johnson and range of the salamander is notable at of its range now, or within the future, Speare 2003, p. 922). Chytridiomycosis only a few occurrences in Caliente by overutilization for commercial, was thought to be restricted to species Canyon. Road construction can destroy recreational, scientific, or educational using aquatic habitat and surface water; Tehachapi slender salamander habitat, purposes. however, Cummer et al. (2005, p. 248) but no new road construction is planned reported the first case of the chytrid Factor C: Disease or Predation for either Caliente Canyon or the other fungus infecting a strictly terrestrial occupied canyons that make up the Little is known about predators of the salamander. The infected Jemez Caliente Canyon population, and roads Tehachapi slender salamander. The Mountains salamander (Plethodon planned for the TMV project avoid only known predator of the species is neomexicanus), a completely terrestrial occupied habitat. Erosion from existing the ring-necked snake; although turkeys species endemic to the Jemez Mountains roads through Caliente Canyon may be and pigs, present on Tejon Ranch, are of New Mexico, suggests that the chytrid having a localized effect in a few areas known to consume amphibians. fungus can survive in terrestrial habitats in the occupied portion of the canyon, However, we have no evidence that (Cummer et al. 2005, p. 248). The but the overall impact on the range of turkeys and pigs are threatening authors note the origin of the pathogen the Caliente Canyon population is at Tehachapi slender salamanders on is unknown, but hypothesize the Jemez most minimal. There has been no Tejon Ranch, and there is no evidence Mountains salamander may have been mining activity within the Caliente that they are affecting the salamanders’ directly or indirectly infected by a Canyon area for almost 20 years, and habitat; therefore, we do not consider sympatric aquatic amphibian carrying there are no plans for mining to start them a threat to the species. the pathogen (Cummer et al. 2005, p. again in the foreseeable future. Potential indirect effects from 248). Further, these findings suggest that The one new residential and residential and commercial more amphibians are at risk of commercial development planned development within or near Tehachapi contracting the chytrid fungus than was within the range of the species is slender salamander habitat could previously believed. proposed on Tejon Ranch. Tejon include an increase in human and Indirect effects from livestock Ranch’s proposed TMV development introduced predator presence. This activities may include the risk of aquatic would remove 108 ac (44 ha) of could potentially be the case for the disease transmission, such as chytrid,

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62912 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

from earthen stock ponds that create lower than if it were closely associated occurring populations of other species areas of standing surface water. Earthen with aquatic environments because this that may carry this fungus. The chytrid stock tanks are often utilized by tiger species is not associated with bodies of fungus is known to have infected a salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum) water, occurs in a characteristically dry closely related species, the black-bellied (Davidson et al. 2003, pp. 601–607), environment, has limited chances of slender salamander. However, the western toads (Bufo boreas), Pacific coming into contact with other infected black-bellied slender treefrogs (Hyla regilla), and introduced amphibians due to its brief above- salamanders were 110 mi (177 km) from bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana), which are ground activity during intermittent the closest confirmed occurrence of the known to be vectors for disease (i.e., periods during the year, and has limited Tehachapi slender salamander within they can carry and spread disease). It is dispersal abilities. To the best of our the Tehachapi Mountains population. possible that these species use adjacent knowledge, no studies have been done Although we do have information that upland areas and may transmit disease to detect the pathogen in the Tehachapi the disease has infected other terrestrial to the Tehachapi slender salamander in slender salamander, or in the yellow- and aquatic salamanders, we do not areas where they co-occur (Hansen in blotched salamander (also referred to as have any evidence that the disease is litt. 2011, p. 1). However, we do not the yellow-blotched ensatina (Ensatina present in either the Tehachapi have enough information to draw eschscholtzii croceator)) that co-occurs Mountains population or the Caliente conclusions on the extent or role with both populations of the Tehachapi Canyon population of the Tehachapi western toads, Pacific tree frogs, and slender salamander (Jockusch in litt. slender salamander, nor is there bullfrogs may play in disease 2009d, pp. 1–2; Germano 2006, pp. 123– evidence that this or any other disease transmission. Although some small- 125; Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694). currently places this species at risk of scale habitat modification is possible, The black-bellied slender salamander, extinction. In addition, we do not have livestock are managed to maintain a which is a close relative of the any information in our files to suggest grassy habitat under the tree canopies, Tehachapi slender salamander and co- that this, or any other disease, will and the connection between earthen occurs with the Tehachapi Mountains become a threat to either population of stock tanks for livestock and aquatic population, is vulnerable to the chytrid the Tehachapi slender salamander in disease transmission is unclear. fungus (Jockusch in litt. 2009d, p. 1). the future. Therefore, we conclude that Therefore, we conclude that disease Some of the black-bellied slender the Tehachapi slender salamander is not transmission from livestock is not a salamanders collected in San Luis threatened or endangered throughout all current threat to the salamander, nor do Obispo County in the 1990s exhibited of its range now, or in the future, by we believe it will be in the future. symptoms of Chytridiomycosis disease or predation. A recent study from the University of (Jockusch in litt. 2009d, pp. 1–2). California, Berkeley, has shown that the Weinstein later confirmed that those Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing chytrid fungus has infected the specimens indeed carried Regulatory Mechanisms California slender salamander, Oregon Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis In determining whether the slender salamander (Batrachoseps (Jockusch in litt. 2009d, p. 1). However, inadequacy of existing regulatory wrighti), Gabilan Mountains slender the infected black-bellied slender mechanisms constitutes a threat to the salamander (B. gavilanensis), and salamanders were collected in San Luis Tehachapi slender salamander, we relictual slender salamander (B. Obispo County, which is 110 mi (177 focused our analysis on existing Federal relictus), all related species sharing the km) from the closest confirmed and State laws and regulations that same genus as the Tehachapi slender occurrence of the Tehachapi Mountains apply to the species and its habitats, and salamander (Weinstein in litt. 2008b, p. population of the Tehachapi slender that could potentially address any 1). Weinstein’s study confirms that salamander in Kern County. It is possible significant threats identified Chytridiomycosis causes California unlikely that infected black-bellied under the other Factors. If a threat is slender salamander mortality in the lab; slender salamanders in San Luis Obispo minor, listing may not be warranted however, individuals may fair better in County could infect individuals in Kern even if existing regulatory mechanisms the field because the population has County due to the distance and the provide little or no protection to counter remained stable, despite the presence of species’ limited dispersal abilities. We the threat. Regulatory mechanisms may the pathogen in the wild population for do not have any evidence of infected preclude the need for listing if such a minimum of 35 years (Weinstein in black-bellied slender salamanders in mechanisms are judged to adequately litt. 2008a, p. 1; Weinstein 2009, p. 1). Kern County that co-occur with the address the threat(s) to the species such Results showed that infected Tehachapi slender salamander. that listing is not warranted. Conversely, salamanders maintained in a dry Summary of Factor C threats on the landscape are exacerbated environment in the lab were able to We have no evidence that predation is when not addressed by existing recover, whereas salamanders in a wet regulatory mechanisms, or when the lab environment had high mortality an impact to the Tehachapi slender existing mechanisms are inadequate (or rates (Weinstein, In press, p. 2). These salamander. Although there is potential not adequately implemented or findings not only confirm that the for an increase in human and enforced). chytrid fungus can infect terrestrial introduced predator presence within the species in the subgenus Batrachoseps, vicinity of occupied salamander habitat Federal Protections but also the possibility that salamanders that could result in indirect impacts to National Environmental Policy Act may recover from the disease in dry the salamander, we anticipate that the environments. presence of coyotes and the species’ The National Environmental Policy We do not know whether the nocturnal and subfossorial behavior will Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as Tehachapi slender salamander has been, likely reduce potential impacts. We do amended (NEPA), requires that all or will be, exposed to the chytrid fungus not have any information to indicate activities undertaken, authorized, or or that exposure would lead to that the chytrid fungus is present in funded by Federal agencies be analyzed transmission throughout its range. The either the Caliente Canyon or the for potential impacts to the human likelihood of the Tehachapi slender Tehachapi Mountains population of the environment prior to implementation. salamander contracting the pathogen is Tehachapi slender salamander or in co- Under NEPA, all Federal agencies are

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62913

required to formally document and not currently address climate change litt. 2009a, pp. 1–2). If potential habitat publicly disclose the environmental effects on wildlife, plants, and is present, then BLM designs the project impacts of their actions and ecosystems. However, our status review or places stipulations on the management decisions. Documentation did not reveal information that indicates authorization such that impacts to for NEPA is provided in an that climate change is a significant salamander habitat are avoided and/or environmental impact statement, an threat to the Tehachapi slender minimized (Kuritsubo in litt. 2007, p. 1). environmental assessment, or a salamander now or within the BLM has screened and surveyed for categorical exclusion, and may be foreseeable future (see Factor E). Tehachapi slender salamander habitat subject to administrative or judicial Federal Land Policy and Management for several projects on their lands that appeal. NEPA does not require that Act fall within the range of the species as adverse impacts be mitigated. NEPA is part of NEPA compliance. required for projects with a Federal As noted earlier, three occurrences of Two of the three Tehachapi slender nexus (i.e., projects that require a the Caliente Canyon population of salamander occurrences located on BLM Federal permit, receive Federal funding, Tehachapi slender salamander are on land are within an existing grazing or are implemented by a Federal BLM land, while there are no allotment (Kuritsubo in litt. 2010b, p. 1); agency). Actions with no Federal nexus occurrences of the Tehachapi the third location on BLM land is in an are not required to comply with this Mountains population on Federal land. area that is not leased for grazing (BLM law. For actions with a Federal nexus, Although strongly oriented toward 2011, p. 1). BLM is required by Federal NEPA would apply regardless of the multiple use, the Federal Land Policy grazing regulations (43 CFR 4100) to location of the action within the range and Management Act of 1976, which is periodically (approximately every 5 to of the species. Our review finds that BLM’s organic act, requires that public 10 years) evaluate all grazing allotments. there are no significant threats to the lands be managed in a manner that will If grazing is determined to have adverse species on lands with a Federal nexus protect the quality of scientific, scenic, impacts to Tehachapi slender for any of the four other Factors. historical, ecological, environmental, air salamander habitat, BLM regulations and atmospheric, water resource, and Clean Air Act require that BLM take action to modify archeological values; that, where the grazing management to ensure that The Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. appropriate, will preserve and protect the negative impact is addressed 7401 et seq.) directs the Environmental certain public lands in their natural (Kuritsubo 2009b, pers. comm.). As Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and condition; that will provide food and described in Factor A, we did not find enforce regulations to protect the habitat for fish and wildlife and that cattle grazing and trampling are general public from exposure to domestic animals; and that will provide significant threats to the Caliente airborne contaminants that are known to for outdoor recreation, human Canyon population of the Tehachapi be hazardous to human health. In 2007, occupancy and use. Typically, land slender salamander or its habitat. BLM’s the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gases management plans are renewed every 15 land use management plan for this area that cause global warming are pollutants to 20 years (Kuritsubo in litt. 2010a, p. is in the process of being updated, and under the Clean Air Act, and that the 1). This law does not require specific is still in draft. All alternatives in the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon protection for the Tehachapi slender draft plan include measures to provide dioxide and other heat-trapping gases salamander against potential threats that habitat for sensitive species, including (Massachusetts et al. v. EPA 2007 [Case may occur on BLM land, such as the Tehachapi slender salamander No. 05–1120]). impacts from grazing. One of the three (Kuritsubo in litt. 2010a, p. 1). There are The EPA published a regulation to occurrences on BLM land shows some no plans for the allotment to change require reporting of greenhouse gas moderate, localized habitat degradation within the next 15 to 20 years emissions from fossil fuel suppliers and from cattle trampling, as discussed (Kuritsubo in litt. 2010a, p. 1; Kuritsubo industrial gas suppliers, direct under Factor A. However, our status in litt. 2009b, p. 1; Kuritsubo 2009b, greenhouse gas emitters, and review did not reveal information that 2010, pers. comm.). manufacturers of heavy-duty and off- indicates that livestock grazing is a BLM’s organic act and designation of road vehicles and engines (74 FR 56260; significant threat to the Tehachapi the Tehachapi slender salamander as a October 30, 2009). The rule, effective slender salamander throughout its range sensitive species provide some December 29, 2009, does not require (see Factor A). control of greenhouse gases; rather it protection for the species where it requires only that sources above certain Sensitive Species Designation by the occurs on BLM land. However, the threshold levels monitor and report Bureau of Land Management benefits to the species are limited emissions. On December 7, 2009, the As noted earlier, the Tehachapi because BLM land within the range of EPA found under section 202(a) of the slender salamander is classified by BLM the salamander is limited to the Caliente Clean Air Act that the current and as a sensitive species. As stated in Canyon population and makes up only projected concentrations of six BLM’s Manual, Section 6840, BLM a small portion (3 of 24 occupied greenhouse gases in the atmosphere Sensitive Species are managed to occurrences, or 12.5 percent) of the threaten public health and welfare. promote their conservation and to species’ entire range. EPA’s finding itself does not impose minimize the likelihood and need for State Protections in California requirements on any industry or other listing under the Act (Kuritsubo in litt. entities, but is a prerequisite for any 2009a, p. 1). BLM’s Bakersfield, California Endangered Species Act future regulations developed by the California Field Office implements The Tehachapi slender salamander is EPA. At this time, it is not known what BLM’s National and State policy listed as threatened under CESA (CDFG regulatory mechanisms will be directives (California BLM Manual 2009, p. 7). CESA provides protections developed in the future as an outgrowth supplement 6840.2) by evaluating for the Tehachapi slender salamander of EPA’s finding or how effective they projects for potential Tehachapi slender both through the prohibition against would be in addressing climate change. salamander habitat prior to take of State-listed species without Therefore, the Clean Air Act and its implementing or authorizing activities authorization (i.e., 2081 incidental take existing implementing regulations do that may affect the species (Kuritsubo in permit) and the requirement that any

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62914 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

take authorized under the statute must Tehachapi Mountain population of the In summary, we conclude that the be fully mitigated (14 CCR § 783.4). Tehachapi slender salamander without threats to the Tehachapi slender Under CESA, private landowners who the implementation of specific species salamander and its habitat on Federal, wish to implement projects that would and habitat avoidance and mitigation State, and private lands from grazing result in take of State-listed species measures (ICF Jones and Stokes 2009, and other existing uses, and on private must obtain a 2081 permit. Similar to pp. 4.4–102, 4.4–156) (see discussion lands from proposed development are section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal under Factor A). However, based on our low. Existing Federal regulatory Endangered Species Act, 2081 permit own analysis (described in Factor A) we mechanisms provide protection for the applicants must develop an HCP that do not concur with the EIR’s species on the small portion of explains how the impacts of taking conclusions regarding significant Tehachapi slender salamander habitat Tehachapi slender salamanders would impacts to the species, and find that the on BLM lands, and existing State laws be fully mitigated. HCPs developed to project design avoids direct impacts, provide protection on State and private support a 2081 permit request would and any indirect impacts that may occur lands from these threats. We did not include conservation measures, often in would not likely rise to a level that find the current limitations of the form of habitat conservation, to would threaten the species. implementing the Clean Air Act to be a address the loss of Tehachapi slender CEQA applies to the entire range of significant threat to the Tehachapi salamanders. In our experience working the species. As of the date of this slender salamander. We did not find with the CDFG in reviewing HCPs on finding, we are not aware of any other any threats to the Tehachapi slender private land in support of incidental projects proposed or planned within the salamander associated with Factors B or take permit applications under CESA range of the Caliente Canyon population C that would warrant protection through and the Federal Endangered Species that would require CEQA analysis. a regulatory mechanism. Climate change Act, such plans require measures to and stochastic events pose potentially avoid, minimize, or mitigate the impacts Summary of Factor D minor threats to the species (see Factor of the taking, including mortality Twenty of the known occupied E); however, the current limitations of resulting from habitat removal. occurrences of the Tehachapi slender regulatory mechanisms addressing these CESA offers protections for the salamander occur on privately owned potential threats do not pose a Tehachapi slender salamander on land, three occur on BLM land and one significant threat to the species now or private and State-owned land, occurs on State land. Almost all of the in the foreseeable future. Therefore, we comprising the majority of lands that are private land and two of the three areas conclude that the species is not known to be occupied by the species on BLM lands (the third area is not part threatened now or in the future (i.e., 21 of the 24 occupied occurrences of a BLM allotment) are primarily used throughout its range by the inadequacy or 87.5 percent). CESA does not for grazing. We did not find that grazing of existing regulatory mechanisms. necessarily constrain activities on the poses a significant threat to the small portion (12.5 percent) of occupied Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Tehachapi slender salamander or its Tehachapi slender salamander habitat Factors Affecting the Continued habitat and thus do not consider on Federal lands within the Caliente Existence of the Species existing regulatory mechanisms, Canyon population. However, as noted Under Factor E, we consider whether including CEQA, CESA, NEPA, FLPMA, above, regulations are in place that climate change and stochastic events and BLM’s classification of the provide some protection to Tehachapi threaten the Tehachapi slender slender salamander habitat on BLM Tehachapi slender salamander as a salamander. Stochastic events are rare, land. sensitive species, inadequate to address chance events such as epidemics; the impacts of grazing on the species prolonged drought; and large, severe California Environmental Quality Act and its habitat. If such threats were to wildfires. Another State law that may address emerge in the future due to a change in threats to the Tehachapi slender grazing intensity, then CEQA and CESA Climate Change salamander is the California would apply on private land and require The term ‘‘climate’’ refers to an area’s Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). authorization for take of Tehachapi long-term average weather patterns, or CEQA requires review of any project slender salamander. Additionally, more specifically as the mean and that is undertaken, funded, or permitted NEPA, FLPMA, and BLM regulations variation of surface variables such as by the State or a local governmental and policies would apply on Federal temperature, precipitation, and wind, agency. If significant effects are land and require that potential impacts whereas ‘‘climate change’’ refers to any identified, the lead agency has the from grazing or any other development change in climate over time, whether option of requiring mitigation through be identified and measures due to natural variability or human changes in the project or to decide that implemented to avoid or minimize such activity (Intergovernmental Panel on overriding considerations make impacts. Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, pp. 6, 871). mitigation infeasible (CEQA section The TMV project within Tejon Ranch Although changes in climate occur 21002). In the latter case, projects may is the one planned residential and continuously over geological time, be approved that cause significant commercial development proposed changes are now occurring at an environmental impacts, including within the vicinity of known accelerated rate. For example, at impacts to listed species and their occurrences (5 out of 24 occupied continental, regional, and ocean-basin habitat. Protection of listed species occurrences or approximately 20.8 scales, recent observed changes in long- through CEQA is, therefore, dependent percent) in the foreseeable future (Kern term trends include: a substantial upon the discretion of the lead agency County in litt. 2009, pp. 1–9). The TMV increase in precipitation in eastern parts involved. project has been designed to avoid all of North America and South America, Tejon Ranch’s proposed TMV project known occurrences and occupied northern Europe, and northern and has undergone CEQA review. The TMV habitat of the Tehachapi slender central Asia; declines in precipitation in Final Environmental Impact Report salamander and to minimize any the Mediterranean, southern Africa, and (EIR) found that construction activities indirect effects on the species and its parts of southern Asia; and an increase could result in significant impacts to the habitat. in intense tropical cyclone activity in

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62915

the North Atlantic since about 1970 likely will continue for many decades (1) The two most likely possibilities of (IPCC 2007, p. 30). Examples of and in some cases for centuries (e.g. precipitation change are a 40 percent observed changes in the physical Solomon et al. 2007, pp. 822–829; projection that the area will see little environment include an increase in Church 2010, p. 411). (¥1 to +1 in (¥2.5 to 2.5 cm)) change global average sea level and declines in Changes in climate can have a variety in precipitation, and a 53 percent mountain glaciers and average snow of direct and indirect impacts on projection that the area will receive cover in both the northern and southern species, and can exacerbate the effects between 1 and 5 in (2.5 and 12.7 cm)) hemispheres (IPCC 2007, p. 30). of other threats. For instance, climate- less precipitation. The IPCC used Atmosphere-Ocean associated environmental changes to the (2) The two most likely possibilities of General Circulation Models and various landscape, such as decreased stream temperature change are a 53 percent greenhouse gas emissions scenarios to flows, increased water temperatures, projection that the temperature of the make projections of climate change reduced snowpacks, and increased fire area will increase by greater than 10 globally and for broad regions through frequency, or other changes occurring degrees Fahrenheit (5.6 degrees the 21st century (Meehl et al. 2007, p. individually or in combination, may Celcius), and a 27 percent projection 753; Randall et al. 2007, pp. 596–599). affect species and their habitats. The that the temperature of the area will Highlights of these projections include: vulnerability of a species to climate increase by 8 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit (1) It is virtually certain there will be change impacts is a function of the (4.4 to 5.6 degrees Celsuis). warmer and more frequent hot days and species’ sensitivity to those changes, its On the other hand, Kelly and Goulden nights over most of the earth’s land exposure to those changes, and its (2008, p. 11824) predict that the amount areas; (2) it is very likely there will be adaptive capacity (IPCC 2007, p. 883). and duration of precipitation may increased frequency of warm spells and As described above, in evaluating the increase for California (in general), and, heat waves over most land areas, and status of a species the Service uses the if this occurs, surface moisture could be the frequency of heavy precipitation best scientific and commercial data maintained despite the warmer events will increase over most areas; available, and this includes temperatures that are predicted. In and (3) it is likely that increases will consideration of direct and indirect addition, warming may reduce the occur in the incidence of extreme high effects of climate change. As is the case degree and duration of extreme cold at sea level (excludes tsunamis), intense with all other stressors we assess, if the higher elevations. Under these tropical cyclone activity, and the area status of a species is expected to be conditions, the duration of surface affected by droughts in various regions affected that does not necessarily mean activity for the Tehachapi slender of the world (Solomon et al. 2007, p. 8). it is a threatened or endangered species salamander may remain the same. More recent analyses using a different as defined under the Act. Climate change can affect plants and global model and comparing other We recognize that temperatures in animals in a number of ways, including emissions scenarios resulted in similar southern California where the changes in distribution, population size, projections of global temperature change Tehachapi slender salamander occurs behavior, and even changes in (Prinn et al. 2011, pp. 527, 529). are likely to increase, which could physiological and physical As is the case with all models, there potentially negatively affect the characteristics (Parmesan and Mathews is uncertainty associated with Tehachapi slender salamander. As 2005, p. 373). A number of published projections due to assumptions used, discussed in the ‘‘Biology and Natural studies predict that temperature and data available, and features of the History’’ section, the Tehachapi slender precipitation trends may change in the models. Despite this, however, under all salamander’s surface activity, during near future, and some describe how models and emissions scenarios the which the species forages and likely biotic communities may respond to overall surface air temperature trajectory finds mates, is limited to periods with such changes (Parmesan and Mathews is one of increased warming in high surface moisture and above 2005, pp. 333–374; IPCC 2007a, pp. 1– comparison to current conditions freezing temperatures. Increased average 21; IPCC 2007b, pp. 1–22; Kelly and (Meehl et al. 2007, p. 762; Prinn et al. surface temperatures could cause soils Goulden 2008, pp. 11823–11826; Miller 2011, p. 527). Climate models and used by Tehachapi slender salamanders et al. 2008, pp. 1–17; Loarie et al. 2008, associated assumptions, data, and to become drier earlier in the year or for pp. 1–10; Jetz et al. 2007, pp. 1211– analytical techniques continue to be longer periods, which may further limit 1216). During a 30-year study in refined, and thus projections are refined the amount of time they can remain at Southern California’s Santa Rosa as more information becomes available the surface. If the period when surface Mountains, Kelly and Goulden (2008, (e.g., Rahmstorf 2010 entire). For moisture is sufficient for activity pp. 11823–11824) observed a geographic instance, observed actual emissions of becomes too short, then the habitat may shift in plant distributions to higher greenhouses gases, which are a key no longer be suitable for the species. elevations that was uniform across influence on climate change, are It is especially difficult with currently elevation gradients and that tracking at the mid- to higher levels of available models to make meaningful corresponded with an observed increase the various scenarios used for making predictions of climate change for in surface temperatures and variability projections, and some expected changes specific, local areas such as the small in precipitation over the same in conditions (e.g., melting of Arctic sea portion of California where the timeframe. Similarly, a study in ice) are occurring more rapidly than Tehachapi slender salamander occurs California’s Cascade and Sierra Nevada initially projected (Raupach et al. 2007, (Parmesan and Matthews 2005, p. 354). Ranges found that plant species tended Figure 1, p. 10289; Comiso et al. 2008, However, a climate change stress report to move towards higher elevations in p. 1; Pielke et al. 2008, entire; LeQuere for the Tehachapi Mountains (TNC response to increasing temperatures et al. 2009, Figure 1a, p. 2; Manning et 2009) projects varying levels of drought regardless of the presence of suitable al. 2010, Figure 1, p. 377; Polyak et al. stress by the end of the 21st Century. habitat to the north or south (Loarie et 2010, p. 1797). In short, the best The following examples demonstrate al. 2008, p. 3). scientific and commercial data available possible changes in precipitation and Based on the research on plant indicates that increases in average temperature from averaging 15 global communities in montane habitats by global surface air temperature and climate models (TNC 2009, no page Kelly and Goulden (2008, pp. 11823– several other changes are occurring and numbers): 11824) and Loarie et al. (2008, p. 3),

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62916 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

populations of Tehachapi slender fragmentation. Habitat fragmentation portions of the canyons currently salamanders may respond to climate resulting from warmer, drier conditions occupied by the salamander will occur change by attempting to shift to higher could make it difficult for Tehachapi because of climate change, habitat will elevations to follow the shifting slender salamanders to travel between remain in the lower, most-shaded vegetation patterns. However, we cannot habitat patches. If temperatures portions to support the salamander and predict the consequences of any potentially increase and precipitation in some cases the salamander may be potential shift because there is likely a decreases in the forseeable future (as able to shift within the canyon in complex suite of indirect effects for any discussed above), one can expect response to climate change. shift in distribution. For example, the changes in vegetation such as a shift in In addition to the uncertainties mesic microclimates that define suitable vegetation to higher elevations or a discussed above, habitat loss due to Tehachapi slender salamander habitat reduction of suitable habitat and potential future human encroachment are dependent on a combination of possibly a reduction in the range of the could exacerbate the potential effects of vegetation cover (providing shade), species. Vegetation changes within the climate change by both reducing the slope, and aspect (affecting the amount range of the Tehachapi slender availability of suitable habitat the of sun exposure on a hillside). The more salamander will likely be most species can move to and increasing the a hillside is exposed to sun, the more it prevalent in more open, montane distance between habitat patches (Jetz et experiences heat and evapotranspiration habitat that is not representative of the al. 2007, pp. 1211–1216; Parmesan and (and thus, desiccation). For example, vegetation on the lower, most heavily Mathews 2005, p. 373). As described steeper north-facing slopes experience shaded portions of north-facing slopes under Factor A above and based on the less time in the sun than gradual south- where the salamander occurs (TNC best information currently available, facing slopes. In addition, the upper 2009, p. 4). Thus, these lower, north- TMV is the one development with slopes of north-facing hillsides are facing slopes may not be altered or County approval near Tehachapi exposed to sun for longer periods than fragmented to the degree that the open, slender salamander occurrences, and north-facing canyon bottoms. montane habitat could be, resulting in this project is not expected to impact Populations of Tehachapi slender the salamander’s habitat (i.e., the the salamander’s occurrences nor the salamanders may be limited to shifting current known occurrences and the adjacent contiguous suitable habitat that their range up-canyon to north-facing contiguous suitable habitat that makes makes up the range of the Tehachapi slopes at higher elevations. The ability up the range of the species) remaining Mountains population of the species. of a population to shift up-canyon relatively stable and acting as refugia for We do not anticipate significant impacts would depend on the availability of the salamander. to the species across its range as a result contiguous (or closely spaced) habitat In summary, available climate models of cumulative effects from human patches that would provide a movement predict average temperatures in the encroachment and climate change due corridor. We do not expect that the Tehachapi Mountains are likely to to a combination of the ecology of the species would be able to shift to increase in the future, although there is species (e.g., its ability to retreat to different canyons at higher altitudes less certainty as to whether underground refugia, minimal surface because of the limited dispersal ability precipitation will remain the same or time during the moist periods of the of individuals and the presence of decrease. However, there is a great deal year, generation time) and because the rugged and unsuitable habitat that of uncertainty as to how these changes TMV development is designed to avoid occurs between most canyons. Also, may affect the Tehachapi slender shifting farther up the slopes that are salamander. How the Tehachapi slender all known occurrences and occupied currently occupied could be limited salamander may react to these changes habitat (see ‘‘Climate Change’’ because the upper reaches of a hillside will be the result of a complex array of discussion above under Factor E, would be more exposed to sunlight, and factors including the degree of ‘‘Tehachapi Mountains Population’’ thus to increased evapotranspiration temperature increase, the decline in discussion under Factor A, and the and dry surface cover, which are precipitation, if any; the degree to Biology and Natural History section). considered unsuitable for Tehachapi which the specific habitat requirements Stochastic Events slender salamander. of the salamander (such as the timing It is possible that some of the and duration of soil moisture, and Under Factor E, we also consider Tehachapi slender salamander’s range under- and overstory composition) will whether three risks, represented by could be reduced (i.e., suitable habitat be affected; changes and shifts in plant demographic, genetic, and that is contiguous with the known diversity and abundance; and the ability environmental stochastic events, are occurrences could disappear from the and opportunity of salamander substantive enough to threaten the lower elevations or from more mesic populations to shift over time. continued existence of the Tehachapi habitat patches), especially if both It is possible that the range of some slender salamander. temperature increases and precipitation populations may be reduced, while In basic terms, demographic declines. Depending on the degree of others are able to shift up-canyon to stochasticity is defined by chance temperature rise and precipitation higher slopes. It may also be that the changes in the population growth rate decline, some loss of habitat and vegetation on the cooler, lower portions for the species (Gilpin and Soule´ 1986, reduction in range is likely; however, of the north-facing slopes occupied by p. 27). Population growth rates are potential loss of habitat or a range the salamander may not be subject to influenced by individual birth and reduction could be compensated for in the same changes predicted for more death rates (Gilpin and Soule´ 1986, p. those areas where up-canyon shifts in open, warmer, and drier slopes. Because 27), immigration and emigration rates, distribution are possible. of these uncertainties, any prediction as well as changes in population sex Overall, the limited range of the about the potential impact of climate ratios. Natural variation in the survival Tehachapi slender salamander makes it change on the Tehachapi slender and reproductive success of individuals vulnerable to potential climate change salamander will be highly speculative. and chance disequilibrium of sex ratios impacts such as habitat alteration (Jetz However, with those uncertainties in may act in concert to contribute to et al. 2007, pp. 1211–1216; Parmesan mind, we believe that, although some demographic stochasticity (Gilpin and and Mathews 2005, p. 373) or loss of habitat in the more exposed Soule´ 1986, p. 27).

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62917

Genetic stochasticity is caused by discovered in 2009 are all located contracting the disease or whether it changes in gene frequencies due to within the general range of the Caliente would be lethal in wild populations of genetic drift, and diminished genetic Canyon population; though distributed the Tehachapi slender salamander (see diversity, and effects due to inbreeding over a a wider area than previously Factor C). Further, we do not know of (i.e., inbreeding depression) (Lande thought (Sweet in litt. 2011, p. 1). any other salamander species, or other 1995, p. 786). Inbreeding can have Occupied habitat in Caliente Canyon is amphibians, that co-occurs with either individual or population-level more patchily distributed than in any of population that has been affected by the consequences either by increasing the the other occupied canyons, with a few fungus in Kern County that could pass phenotypic expression (the outward gaps between habitat of more than a along the infection through physical appearance, or observable structure, mile. These gaps are beyond the limited contact. function, or behavior of a living dispersal ability of individuals, and The State of California has organism) of recessive, deleterious movement up and down canyon across experienced cycles of drought for many alleles or by reducing the overall fitness large gaps may only occur under years. For example, between 1928 and of individuals in the population (Shaffer extreme circumstances (such as a major 1987 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 1981, p. 131). flood). reported five severe droughts across Environmental stochasticity is Habitat in the other occupied canyons California, including the longest defined as the susceptibility of small, is more contiguous, and movement up drought in the State’s history from 1929 isolated populations of wildlife species and down canyon is likely to occur. The to 1934 (USGS 2004, p. 2). The to natural levels of environmental average distance between occupied Tehachapi slender salamander has variability and related ‘‘catastrophic’’ canyons for both the Caliente Canyon persisted through these periods of events (e.g., disease epidemics, and Tehachapi Mountains populations severe drought. During periods of severe prolonged drought, wildfire) (Young is about 4 mi (6.4 m), indicating that drought, Tehachapi slender salamanders 1994, pp. 410–412; Mangel and Tier genetic exchange between canyons is likely remain in a state of aestivation 1994, p. 612; Dunham et al. 1999, p. 9). unlikely. However, although the species below ground. Plethodontids are known Each risk will be analyzed specifically may be vulnerable to genetic for their low metabolism and ability to for the Tehachapi slender salamander. stochasticity, we have no evidence of a survive long periods without feeding As a whole, the Tehachapi slender genetic bottleneck or inbreeding (Feder 1983, pp. 304–305). Therefore, salamander is considered a naturally depression. We do not have information based on their metabolism and rare species, due to its restricted and to indicate that these have occurred. demonstrated ability to persist during endemic geographic distribution and The vulnerability of the species to periods of severe drought in the past, we specific habitat requirements and is demographic stochasticity may be do not believe that severe drought will likely vulnerable to the threat of genetic indicated by skewed sex ratios or a threaten the species in the foreseeable stochasticity. The two populations of small or reduced number of offspring. future. the Tehachapi slender salamander have However, there are no data that would The Tehachapi slender salamander relatively small geographic ranges and indicate such a threat to the species could be at some risk from large, severe limited dispersal abilities, and we do exists. wildfires in the foreseeable future. believe that any contact between the Stochastic (chance) events such as Studies suggest that forests in California two populations is unlikely because of epidemics, severe drought, or large, will experience longer fire seasons and the distance and type of terrain between severe fires can threaten the persistence more frequent, extensive, and severe them. This conclusion is supported by of species with restricted ranges because fires by the end of this century (Lenihan the substantial genetic differences a single event can occur within all or a et al. 2003, p. A–13; Miller et al. 2008, between the two populations (Jockusch large portion of their range. Species that pp. 1–15). An increase in fire frequency in litt. 2009e, p. 1). are relatively sedentary are probably and extent will likely lead to an increase As with all species of Batrachoseps, less able than mobile animals to in fire impacts, including soil erosion, Tehachapi slender salamanders are recolonize parts of their range where sediment runoff, and habitat sedentary and individuals travel no they have been extirpated. The fragmentation (Miller et al. 2008, p. 13). more than about 10 ft (3 m) (Hansen in Tehachapi slender salamander’s Therefore, fire could have a negative litt. 2009b, p. 1). For example, a study characteristics of being rare, patchily impact on the species in the future if the reported that the California slender distributed, and sedentary could further frequency and intensity of forest fires salamander stayed within a 5-ft (1.5-m) increase the species’ risks of extinction increases as predicted. area over 2 years of observations (Yanev from stochastic events (Hansen and The impacts of forest fires on the 1980, p. 533). Analyses of the fossil Wake 2005, p. 694). In the absence of Tehachapi slender salamander are not record of currently threatened species information identifying threats to the well understood. Fire outbreaks would suggest that species with these species and linking those threats to the likely occur during the dry season when characteristics are at a higher risk of rarity of the species, the Service does salamanders are aestivating below extinction than are mobile, widely not consider rarity alone to be a threat. ground where they are afforded some distributed species (Jablonksi 1986, pp. However, we need to consider potential level of protection. However, the 129–133; Manne et al. 1999, p. 260; threats (e.g., fire, drought) that might be vegetation canopy that helps retain Dynesius and Jansson 2000, p. 9116; exacerbated by rarity, as discussed surface moisture and the leaf litter and Payne and Finnegan 2007, pp. 10506– below. downed logs that are important 10511). However, other than the one Epidemics and large, severe fires are components of the salamander’s habitat occurrence near the Tehachapi Pass (see two kinds of stochastic events that would be affected. As discussed in the Figure 2), and the area along the Tejon could negatively affect populations of Climate Change section above, there is Pass (i.e., the Interstate Highway 5 the Tehachapi slender salamander. The also a great deal of uncertainty about corridor), there is no evidence that the only lethal disease we are aware of that future climate change within the range species distribution has significantly could behave as an epidemic in of the species and in turn, over the changed over the past 200 years (Hansen populations of this salamander is future of fire. However, the Tehachapi in litt. 2011, p. 1). The four occurrences chytridiomycosis (see Factor C), but we slender salamander has persisted in of Tehachapi slender salamander have no information of this species Caliente Canyon (and surrounding

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62918 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

occupied canyon areas) and the combination, are of sufficient which data shows only minor to Tehachapi Mountains, which are prone imminence, intensity or magnitude to moderate signs of degradation from to forest fires, for thousands of years. affect the status of the Tehachapi livestock use. Some localized habitat at Therefore, we conclude that forest fires slender salamander. 3 of the 18 occurrences (approximately are a concern, but do not rise to the We conclude that the best available 16.7 percent) show signs of moderate level of a significant threat to the information concerning Factor E impact from cattle trampling; however, Caliente Canyon and Tehachapi indicates that the Tehachapi slender habitat in good to fair condition that Mountains populations of the salamander is not threatened would support the species remains at Tehachapi slender salamander. individually or cumulatively by the the 3 occurrences. There are no effects of climate change or proposed projects associated with Summary of Factor E demographic, genetic, or environmental residential or commercial development, Because of the rarity and limited stochasticity. Therefore, we conclude road construction, or mining anywhere dispersal ability of the species, genetic that the Tehachapi slender salamander near known occurrences within Caliente stochasticity is a concern. However, we is not threatened or endangered Canyon. do not have any evidence of genetic throughout all of its range now or in the The primary land use within the bottlenecks or inbreeding depression to future by other natural or manmade range of the Tehachapi Mountains indicate that genetic stochasticity is a factors. population is also livestock grazing, and significant threat. Nor do we have any we do not have any information that Finding information to indicate that indicates that use by cattle has resulted demographic stochasticity or a disease We have assessed the best scientific in significant habitat degradation of any outbreak is likely to be a significant and commercial information available of the five canyons known to be threat in the future. Environmental regarding threats faced by the Tehachapi occupied by this population. Tejon stochasticity, particularly wildfire, is a slender salamander. We have reviewed Ranch is planning a large-scale concern; however, we do not believe the petition, scientific literature, residential and commercial that this rises to a level that threatens information available in our files, and development project, TMV. However, the persistence of the species over the all information submitted to us the TMV development envelope is long-term. following our 90-day petition finding designed to avoid known salamander Changes in climate can have a variety (74 FR 18336; April 22, 2009). We also occurrences and all occupied habitat of direct and indirect impacts on species consulted with recognized Tehachapi within the species range for the such as the Tehachapi slender slender salamander experts, Federal Tehachapi Mountains population. In a salamander, and can exacerbate the land managers, and local governments, worst-case scenario, 2.8 percent of the effects of other threats. However, there and arranged for a recognized potentially suitable habitat for the is a great deal of uncertainty as to how Tehachapi slender salamander expert to species on the Tejon Ranch will be lost climate change may affect the assess potential threats to the habitat to development. Indirect impacts from Tehachapi slender salamander, and any and range of the species relative to the TMV project are expected to be prediction about the potential impact of current and planned land uses and restricted to the immediate vicinity of climate change on the Tehachapi occurrences of the species. development well away from all slender salamander will be highly Potential threats include occupied habitat and known speculative. However, with those development, road construction, occurrences of the species. Therefore, uncertainties in mind, we believe that, mining, domestic livestock grazing, we believe that the development is not although some loss of habitat in the introduced species, and flood control a significant threat to the species. more exposed portions of the canyons projects. Based on the best available We do not have any indication that currently occupied by the salamander information, we find that the evidence flood control projects occur or are will occur because of climate change, supports a finding that listing the planned to occur within either the habitat will remain in the lower, most- Tehachapi slender salamander is not Caliente Canyon or Tehachapi shaded portions to support the warranted. Mountains area. salamander and in some cases the While only two Tehachapi slender The impact of climate change is a salamander may be able to shift within salamander populations are known, concern for the species, and although the canyons in response to climate information in our files does not there is uncertainty, we believe that change. indicate whether these populations are some loss of habitat in the more exposed A species may also be affected by in decline, stable, or increasing; portions of the canyons that are more than one threat in combination. however, the Caliente Canyon currently occupied by the salamander Within the preceding review of the five population is now known to be made up will occur because of climate change. listing factors, we have identified of five populations, rather than the However, we also believe that habitat several threats that could have previously known single population will remain in the lower, most-shaded interrelated impacts on the Tehachapi (Sweet in litt. p. 1). The best available portions of canyons to support the slender salamander. For example, information indicates that this species is salamander and in some cases the potential suitable habitat may be lost or naturally rare. While rare species may salamander may be able to shift within altered as a result of a combination of face threats from normal population the canyon in response to climate development (Factor A) and effects of fluctuations due to predation, disease, change. Because of the rarity and climate change (Factor E). Likewise, changing food supply, and stochastic limited dispersal ability of the species, predation (Factor C) in combination (random) events, our evaluation of the genetic stochasticity is also a concern. with a stochastic event (Factor E), such best available information indicates that However, we do not have any evidence as a forest fire could result in a major these potential threats do not threaten of genetic bottlenecks or inbreeding loss of individuals in one or more the continued existence of the depression to indicate that genetic populations. However, as we discuss Tehachapi slender salamander. stochasticity is a significant threat. above, regardless of its source, we do The range of the salamander within There are regulatory mechanisms in not believe that the threats discussed the Caliente Canyon area is primarily on place, such as CESA, CEQA, and BLM’s above, either individually or in land used for grazing, an activity for special status designation for the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62919

species, that provide adequate Distinct Vertebrate Population consequence of physical, physiological, protections from threats for both Segments ecological, or behavioral factors. populations of the species. After assessing whether the species is Quantitative measures of genetic or In summary, the main activity in the threatened or endangered throughout its morphological discontinuity may range of the Tehachapi slender range, we next consider whether a provide evidence of this separation. salamander at the present time is cattle (2) It is delimited by international Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment grazing, which is likely to remain the governmental boundaries within which (DPS) or whether any significant portion only activity within the range of the differences in control of exploitation, of the Tehachapi slender salamander’s Caliente Canyon population. We have management of habitat, conservation determined that the impacts of grazing range is in danger of extinction or likely status, or regulatory mechanisms exist are limited to a few areas in Caliente to become so within the foreseeable that are significant in light of section Canyon, and sufficient habitat to future. 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. We note that the support the species remains in these Distinct Population Segment standard set forth in the DPS policy is areas; few impacts from grazing have that a DPS be ‘‘markedly separated’’ As previously noted, we have been observed in the canyons known to from other populations—thus, while determined that there are two separate be occupied by the Tehachapi absolute separation is not required, populations of the Tehachapi slender Mountains population. Therefore, we there must be sufficient separation such salamander. Under section 4(a)(1) of the have determined that cattle grazing is that ‘‘large numbers’’ of individuals are Act, we must evaluate five threat factors not a significant impact to the species not migrating between populations. now or in the foreseeable future. to determine whether a species should Markedly Separated From Other Second, we have determined the be listed as endangered or threatened. Populations of the Taxon proposed residential and commercial Section 3(16) of the Act defines development on Tejon Ranch will not ‘‘species’’ to include ‘‘any subspecies of The Caliente Canyon and Tehachapi have a significant impact on the species fish or wildlife or plants, and any Mountains populations of the because the footprint of the distinct population segment (DPS) of Tehachapi slender salamander both development has been designed to avoid any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife meet the discreteness element of the all known occurrences of the which interbreeds when mature’’ (16 DPS policy. The general region where salamander and does not overlap with U.S.C. 1532(16)). To interpret and the Tehachapi slender salamander any habitat that is likely occupied. implement the DPS portion of the occurs consists of semi-arid terrain Third, we have determined that indirect definition of a species under the Act containing localized areas of mesic impacts from the proposed development and Congressional guidance, the Service habitat favorable to salamanders will not be significant because they are and the National Marine Fisheries (Hansen in litt. 2009a, p. 13). The not likely to extend far enough from the Service published an interagency Policy Caliente Canyon group of occurrences is proposed development footprint to Regarding the Recognition of Distinct isolated from the Tehachapi Mountains affect known occurences or occupied Vertebrate Population Segments under occurrences by a minimum of 13 mi (21 habitat and because the salamander is the Act (DPS Policy) on February 7, km) of rugged terrain, much of which is above ground for only a few months of 1996 (61 FR 4722). The DPS Policy dry, unsuitable habitat (Hansen in litt. the year and remains under talus and allows for more refined application of 2009a, p. 11). There is no evidence of fallen logs when it is at the surface. the Act that better reflects the movement between the Caliente Canyon Fourth, although climate change is a conservation needs of the taxon being and Tehachapi Mountains populations concern, we have determined that the considered and avoids the inclusion of due to the sedentary nature of the impacts of climate change will not be entities that may not warrant protection species, and the distance and rugged significant because there is some under the Act. terrain between them (Hansen in litt. uncertainty as to how the climate in the Under our DPS Policy, we consider 2009a, p. 11). In addition, genetic area where the species occurs will three elements in a decision regarding studies show that the Caliente Canyon change and that sufficient habitat will the status of a possible DPS as and Tehachapi Mountains populations remain to support the species. Finally, endangered or threatened under the Act. have been isolated from each other for we have determined that the cumulative We apply them similarly for additions over a million years (Hansen in litt. impacts of all of the five factors on the to the List of Threatened and 2009a, p. 11; Hansen 2009b pers. species will not be significant because, Endangered Wildlife and Plants (List), comm.; Jockusch 1996, p. 91; Jockusch based on the best available information, reclassification, and removal from the in litt. 2009f, p. 2). the interrelated current and anticipated List. They are: (1) discreteness of the Further, we have no evidence of impacts of development, road population segment in relation to the breeding and gene flow between the construction, mining, domestic remainder of the taxon; (2) the Caliente Canyon population and the livestock grazing, introduced species, significance of the population segment Tehachapi Mountains population. flood control projects, climate change, to the taxon to which it belongs; and (3) Genetic exchange between these and stochastic events do not threaten the population segment’s conservation populations is prevented by the distance the Tehachapi slender salamander. status in relation to the Act’s standards and lack of suitable movement corridors Considering all of the identified impacts for listing (whether the population between them (Hansen 2009a, pers. in combination, sufficient habitat will segment is, when treated as if it were a comm.). Hansen suggests that remain to support the species. species, endangered or threatened). interbreeding of Tehachapi slender Therefore, on the basis of the best salamanders between occupied canyons scientific and commercial information Analysis for Discreteness within the two populations rarely available, we find that the species is not Under the DPS policy, a population occurs due to a number of factors, at risk of extinction across its range now segment of a vertebrate taxon is including: patchy distribution of or in the foreseeable future and as a considered to be discrete if it meets one Tehachapi slender salamanders, result find that listing the species range- of the following conditions: distance between occupied habitat, lack wide as threatened or endangered under (1) It is markedly separated from other of suitable habitat corridors between the Act is not warranted at this time. populations of the same taxon as a occupied canyons, and the sedentary

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62920 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

characteristics of the salamanders its biological and ecological significance populations experience higher (Hansen 2009b pers. comm.). will be considered in light of temperatures for a longer period of time In addition to the distance and the Congressional guidance. than any of the Tehachapi Mountains physical and genetic isolation between populations, and snowfall occurs less Analysis of Significance the two populations, there are reported often and remains on the ground for differences in morphology (appearance) If a population segment is considered shorter periods of time at the lower and habitat between the Caliente discrete under one or more of the elevations. These differences are likely Canyon population and the population conditions described in our DPS policy, to result in differences in the length and found in the Tehachapi Mountains its biological and ecological significance timing of surface activity between the (Jockusch and Wake 2002, p. 383; will be considered in light of two populations. There are also minor Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694). As Congressional guidance that the differences in either the material stated in the DPS policy, ‘‘Quantitative authority to list DPSs be used available on the surface or the surface measures of genetic or morphological ‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging the material selected by the two discontinuity may provide evidence of conservation of genetic diversity. In populations, with the Caliente Canyon this separation.’’ For example, making this determination, we consider population most often found under Tehachapi slender salamanders in available scientific evidence of the rocks and talus, while the Tehachapi Caliente Canyon tend to have more discrete population segment’s Mountains population is more often noticeable brick-red/copper coloration, importance to the taxon to which it found under leaves, woody debris, and and tend to be larger with belongs. Since precise circumstances are talus (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694). proportionately larger tails than likely to vary considerably from case to Although differences exist in the salamanders living in the Tehachapi case, the DPS policy does not describe ecological setting of the two Mountains (Hansen 2009b pers. comm.; all the classes of information that might populations, we do not find these Hansen in litt. 2009d, p. 1). Tehachapi be used in determining the biological differences to be great enough to be slender salamanders in the Caliente and ecological importance of a discrete considered unusual or unique for the Canyon area occur at much lower population. However, the DPS policy taxon. elevations (1,804 ft (550 m)) than those does provide four possible reasons why Gap in the Range in the Tehachapi Mountains (3,100 ft a discrete population may be significant. (945 m)) (Hansen 2009, p. 1; Sweet in As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR Because the species consists of only litt. 2011, p. 1). Tehachapi slender 4722), this consideration of the two, discrete populations that constitute salamanders in Caliente Canyon are population segment’s significance may 47 percent and 53 percent, respectively, more often found under rocks and talus. include, but is not limited to, the of the species known range, the loss of On the other hand, salamanders in the following: either the Caliente Canyon population Tehachapi Mountains are more often (1) Persistence of the discrete to the north or the Tehachapi Mountains found under leaves, woody debris, and population segment in an ecological population to the south would create a talus (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694). setting unusual or unique to the taxon; substantial gap in the range of the Based on the physical separation of the (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete species. two populations and the evidence that population segment would result in a Whether the Population Represents the they do not interbreed, including significant gap in the range of a taxon; Only Surviving Natural Occurrence of differences in genetics and morphology, (3) Evidence that the discrete the Taxon we find that the Caliente Canyon and population segment represents the only Tehachapi Mountains populations are surviving natural occurrence of a taxon Both populations of the Tehachapi discrete. that may be more abundant elsewhere as slender salamander are in entirely natural settings, and there are no International Border Issues an introduced population outside its historic range; or populations that have been introduced A population segment of a vertebrate (4) Evidence that the discrete outside the range of the species and species may be considered discrete if it population segment differs markedly there are no captive populations. is delimited by international from other populations of the species in Consequently, this factor is not governmental boundaries across which its genetic characteristics. applicable to our determination differences in control of exploitation, A population segment needs to satisfy regarding significance. management of habitat, conservation only one of these criteria to be Marked Differences in Genetic status, or regulatory mechanisms exist considered significant. Furthermore, the Characteristics that are significant in light of section list of criteria is not exhaustive; other 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Given that the criteria may be used as appropriate. As discussed previously, a high level range of the species as a whole lies of divergence (greater than 5 percent) in entirely within the United States Ecological Setting mtDNA exists between the Caliente borders, international border issues do The Caliente Canyon and Tehachapi Canyon and Tehachapi Mountains not apply in this situation. Mountains populations are 13 mi (21 populations (Jockusch in litt. 2009e, p. In summary, available information on km) apart, and we would not generally 1; Jockusch in litt. 2009f, pp. 1–2). the Tehachapi slender salamander expect that ecological differences would However, mtDNA represents only five indicates that the Caliente Canyon occur in that short distance, and the females of the two populations population and Tehachapi Mountains habitat of the two populations is similar. (Jockusch in litt. 2009e, p. 1). Jockusch’s population are markedly separated from However, as discussed previously, the (in litt. 2009d, p. 1) preliminary findings one another by distance, gene flow, and range of the Caliente Canyon population on nuclear DNA (based on only two to a lesser degree, morphology and is as much as 1,300 ft (396 m) lower in individuals), which represents both habitat use and, therefore, meet the elevation than that of the Tehachapi sexes, found less divergence than with criteria for being discrete. If a Mountains population. This elevational mtDNA. Although this research population segment is considered difference exposes the two populations indicates that there may be genetic discrete pursuant to one or more of the to different climatic conditions. For differences between the two conditions described in our DPS policy, example, the lower Caliente Canyon populations, because of the small

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62921

sample size, the available information is information received during the public Summary of Factor A of the Tehachapi too inconclusive and limited for us to comment period that ended June 22, Mountains DPS find that the two populations are 2009. Four of the five canyons (five of the markedly genetically different from each six known occurrences) occupied by the other. Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Tehachapi Mountains DPS are found on Conclusion of Distinct Population Curtailment of the Species’ Habitat or Tejon Ranch. Current land use on Tejon Segment Review Range Ranch in the area where occupied We find that, because there are only canyons and potential habitat for the two populations of the species, the loss Because the Factor A analysis for the Tehachapi slender salamander are of either would result in a significant entire range of the species specifically located includes cattle grazing, farming, gap in the overall range of the species. discussed these threats for the Caliente and recreation. We know that cattle However, we do not find that either Canyon population, the same analysis grazing and rooting from pigs and population represents the only applies for the Caliente Canyon DPS. turkeys can affect the habitat of surviving natural occurrence or that Likewise, the analysis of threats under Tehachapi slender salamander through either population is markedly Factor A for the Tehachapi Mountains trampling and erosion. However, habitat genetically different. Therefore, because population, equally applies to the at all known occurrences on Tejon each population meets one of the Tehachapi Mountains DPS. The threats Ranch is in good condition, despite the presence of cattle, turkeys, and pigs considerations for significance in our are briefly summarized below for each (Hansen in litt. 2010a, p. 3; Miller in litt. DPS policy, we find that both the DPS. Please refer to the Factor A Caliente Canyon and Tehachapi 2010b, p. 4). Therefore, we have no analysis for the entire range of the evidence that indicates that cattle Mountains populations are significant species for details. under the policy. grazing or rooting from pigs and turkeys The Caliente Canyon and the Summary of Factor A of the Caliente are threats to the Tehachapi Mountains Tehachapi Mountains populations of Canyon DPS DPS on Tejon Ranch. the Tehachapi slender salamander are None of the four occupied canyons both discrete and significant. The two Overall, 4 out of 18 occurrences fall within the 7,860-ac (3,181-ha) populations have been physically showed relatively localized signs of proposed TMV development envelope, separated by distance and barriers such moderate disturbance from cattle and all occupied habitat and as dry, unsuitable habitat for over a grazing, residential use, or erosion from occurrences are will be at least 0.5 mi million years, and there is no evidence a nearby road. Disturbance specifically (0.8 km) away from any development. of gene flow between the two. The two associated with cattle trampling was Although Tejon Ranch’s planned TMV populations are each significant because seen at 3 out of 18 occurrences project may remove 108 ac (44 ha) of loss of either one would result in a (approximately 16.7 percent). However, potentially suitable habitat, the TMV substantial gap in the range of the sufficient habitat in good-to-fair project is designed to avoid all occupied species. For these reasons, we find that condition to support the species habitat and all known occurrences of the Caliente Canyon population and the remains at all 4 locations, while all of the Tehachapi slender salamander Tehachapi Mountains population each the habitat at the other 14 occurrences within the project development area and footprint. Because the TMV constitute a distinct population segment is in good to fair condition. No new road development is designed to avoid direct of the Tehachapi slender salamander. construction is planned within the impacts to the DPS, and indirect effects Summary of Information Pertaining to range of the Caliente Canyon from the development (including the Five Factors population; however, erosion associated increased presence of humans, pets, and Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) with an existing road in Caliente predators) are not considered to be a and implementing regulations at 50 CFR Canyon is affecting habitat in a few significant threat to the species, the part 424 set forth procedures for adding localized areas. Mining activity within proposed residential and commercial species to the Federal List of the Caliente Canyon area is not development is not considered a threat Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. occurring, and there are no confirmed to the Tehachapi Mountains DPS. An ‘‘endangered species’’ is any species plans for mining to start again in the There are no known flood control in danger of extinction throughout all or foreseeable future. In addition, there are projects or mining projects occurring or a significant portion of its range. A no plans for new residential or planned to occur within the range of ‘‘threatened species’’ is any species commercial development within the this DPS. In addition, there are no which is likely to become an Caliente Canyon DPS of the species. We known threats of habitat removal or endangered species within the are also not aware of any flood control degradation for the species on Fort foreseeable future throughout all or a projects within the range of the DPS or Tejon SHP. Therefore, we conclude that significant portion of its range. In any planned flood control projects. For this DPS is not threatened or making this finding, we summarize these reasons, we conclude that cattle endangered throughout all of its range below information regarding the status grazing, roads, mining, flood control within the future by the present or and threats to the two DPS’s of the projects, and commercial and threatened destruction, modification, or Tehachapi slender salamander in residential development do not curtailment of its habitat or range. relation to the five factors in section constitute a substantial threat to the 4(a)(1) of the Act. A species may be Factor B: Overutilization for Caliente Canyon DPS of the Tehachapi determined to be an endangered or Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or slender salamander. Therefore, we threatened species due to one or more Educational Purposes of the five factors described in section conclude that this DPS is not threatened We are not aware of any information 4(a)(1) of the Act. In making our 12- or endangered throughout all of its that indicates overutilization for month finding, we considered and range within the future by the present commercial, recreational, scientific, or evaluated all scientific and commercial or threatened destruction, modification, educational purposes is a threat to the information in our files, including or curtailment of its habitat or range. Caliente Canyon DPS or the Tehachapi

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62922 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Mountains DPS of the Tehachapi predator presence. This could still evolving. Our status review did not slender salamander. Therefore, we potentially be the case for the Tehachapi reveal substantial information that conclude that neither DPS is threatened Mountains DPS of the Tehachapi indicates that climate change poses a or endangered throughout all of its slender salamander, as indirect, long- significant threat to the Tehachapi range within the future by term potential effects from the TMV slender salamander throughout its range overutilization for commercial, project would include an increase in including both the Caliente Canyon and recreational, scientific, or educational human and predator presence at Tejon Tehachapi Mountains DPSs (see Factor purposes. Ranch. An increased presence of E). humans, domestic animals, and Factor C: Disease or Predation BLM’s organic act and designation of predators will be primarily concentrated the Tehachapi slender salamander as a As discussed under Factor C for the within the TMV development envelope, species as a whole, we do not know sensitive species provide some although it is possible for predators to protection for the species where it whether the Tehachapi slender disperse to areas of occupied Tehachapi salamander has been, or will be, occurs on BLM land. Although we find slender salamander habitat. We do not that BLM’s policies protect Tehachapi exposed to a deadly pathogen, such as have any evidence to indicate that these the chytrid fungus. However, related slender salamander habitat, the benefits indirect effects will rise to a level that to the species are limited because only terrestrial species of salamanders have would threaten the existence of the been found to suffer from a small portion of the Tehachapi slender Tehachapi slender salamander. salamander’s range within the Caliente Chytridiomycosis, including the We do not have any evidence that Canyon DPS occurs on BLM land California and black-bellied slender predation threatens the persistence of (approximately 16.7 percent), and there salamanders. As previously discussed, either the Caliente Canyon or Tehachapi Weinstein’s study showed that Mountains DPS. Pigs and turkeys are is no BLM land within the range of the Chytridiomycosis causes mortality of a present within the Tehachapi Tehachapi Mountains DPS. fully terrestrial salamander species in a Mountains DPS and are known to prey State Protections moist lab environment; however, on amphibians; however, currently individuals were able to recover in a dry available information does not indicate CESA provides protection to the lab environment. Her study suggests that they are affecting Tehachapi species on privately owned and State- that individuals of terrestrial slender slender salamanders. Therefore, we owned land (i.e., 21 of the 24 occupied salamander species may fair better in conclude that the Caliente Canyon and occurrences or 87.5 percent), but not the field (Weinstein in litt. 2008a, p. 1; Tehachapi Mountains DPSs of the necessarily on the small portion (12.5 Weinstein 2009, p. 1). Tehachapi slender salamander are not percent) of occupied habitat on Federal We do not have any information to threatened or endangered throughout all lands within the Caliente Canyon indicate that the chytrid fungus is of their range within the future by population. present in the Caliente Canyon DPS of disease or predation. CEQA applies to both the Caliente the Tehachapi slender salamander or Canyon and Tehachapi Mountains any other species with which it co- Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms DPSs; however, as of the date of this occurs. The black-bellied slender finding, there are no projects proposed salamander, which has been infected by To the extent that we identify or planned within the range of the chytrid in San Luis Obispo County (110 possibly significant threats in the other Caliente Canyon DPS that would require mi or 177 km away), only co-occurs Factors, we consider under this factor CEQA. The EIR associated with Tejon with the Tehachapi Mountain DPS of whether those threats are adequately Ranch’s proposed TMV project the Tehachapi slender salamander. addressed by existing regulatory addresses occurrences of the Tehachapi Other amphibian species that could co- mechanisms. Thus, if a threat is minor, slender salamander within the occur with the Tehachapi slender listing may not be warranted even if Tehachapi Mountains DPS. The Final salamander that have been known to existing regulatory mechanisms provide EIR serves to confirm a project design carry chytrid include the Pacific tree little or no protection to counter the that avoids all known occurrences and frog, western toad, and bullfrog; threat. Please refer to the Factor D occupied habitat of the Tehachapi however, the disease has not been discussion in the species section for a slender salamander on Tejon Ranch. detected in these species in the range of description of the relevant regulatory There are no other development the Tehachapi slender salamander in mechanisms that may provide some projects proposed within the Tehachapi Kern County. Based on the limited protections for one or both DPSs. information available, it appears that the Mountains DPS; therefore, threats of Tehachapi Mountains DPS runs a Federal Protections habitat removal and degradation from slightly higher risk of contracting NEPA is required for projects within commercial and residential chytrid from a co-occurring species than the Caliente Canyon and Tehachapi development (see Factor A) do not rise the Caliente Canyon DPS. However, Mountains DPSs if there is a Federal to a level that would threaten the DPS based on our current understanding of nexus (i.e., projects that require a at this time or within the future. the transmission and the ability of fully Federal permit, receive Federal funding, Summary of Factor D terrestrial slender salamander species to or are implemented by a Federal recover from the effects of chytrid, we agency). Although NEPA requires As discussed in Factors A, B, C, and do not believe that this risk rises to the analysis and disclosure of impacts to the E, we did not find a specific factor that level of threatening the continued human environment, including threatens the continued survival of the existence of either DPS. biological resources such as the Tehachapi slender salamander within As discussed in Factor C for the Tehachapi slender salamander, it stops the Caliente Canyon or the Tehachapi species as a whole, potential indirect short of requiring that protection Mountains DPSs. Therefore, we find effects from residential or commercial measures be implemented. that neither DPS is threatened by the development within or near Tehachapi EPA policies to implement the Clean inadequacy of existing regulatory slender salamander habitat could Air Act in addressing climate change mechanisms throughout its range now, include an increase in human and caused by greenhouse gas emissions are or within the future.

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62923

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade several threats that could have and showed generally low signs of Factors Affecting the Continued interrelated impacts on the Tehachapi degradation from livestock trampling Existence of the Species slender salamander. For example, and erosion, with only 3 of 18 As discussed in the analysis of threats potential suitable habitat may be lost or occurrences exhibiting moderate under Factor E for the Tehachapi altered as a result of a combination of degradation in some portions of their development (Factor A) and effects of habitat. There are no proposed projects slender salamander across its entire climate change (Factor E). Likewise, associated with residential or range, the petitioner stated the predation (Factor C) in combination commercial development or mining Tehachapi slender salamander is with a stochastic event (Factor E), such anywhere near known occurrences threatened by climate change caused by as a forest fire could result in a major within Caliente Canyon. anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse loss of individuals in one or more The primary land use within the gases, and by stochastic events due to its populations. However, as we discuss range of the Tehachapi Mountains DPS small, narrowly distributed populations above, regardless of its source, we do is also livestock grazing, but we do not (Nichols 2006, p. 8). not believe that the threats discussed have any information that indicates that Climate Change above, either individually or in grazing has resulted in significant combination, are of sufficient habitat degradation. Tejon Ranch is The possible effects to the imminence, intensity or magnitude to planning a large-scale residential and populations within the Caliente Canyon affect the status of either the Caliente commercial development project, TMV. and Tehachapi Mountains areas, as Canyon or Tehachapi Mountains DPS of The TMV development envelope avoids discussed in Factor E for the species, are the Tehachapi slender salamander. all known occurrences and adjacent identical for each DPS. Please refer to Therefore, we conclude that neither contiguous habitat, and occurs at a the Factor E discussion for the species the Caliente Canyon nor the Tehachapi sufficient distance from the species’ for further details. Based on a review of Mountains DPS is threatened or dispersal range. Because the DPS’ available information, we believe that endangered throughout its range within confirmed occurrences are discretely some loss of habitat in the more open, the future by other natural or manmade distributed and isolated, the proposed exposed parts of occupied canyons will factors. development is not expected to affect occur as a result of climate change. movement patterns or breeding. The Finding for Distinct Population However, we also believe that habitat approved EIR estimates that 108 ac (44 Segments will remain in the lower, most-shaded ha) of potentially suitable habitat within portions of canyons to support the As previously mentioned for the the TMV development envelope would salamander and in some cases the finding for the species as a whole, we be lost due to construction. The loss of salamander may be able to shift within have carefully assessed the best 108 ac (44 ha) is likely an the canyon in response to climate scientific and commercial information overestimation of the amount of suitable change. Therefore, we find that neither available regarding threats faced by the habitat that exists, due to the constraints the Caliente Canyon nor Tehachapi Caliente Canyon DPS and the Tehachapi of modeling projections, but even using Mountains DPS of the Tehachapi Mountains DPS of the Tehachapi this 108 ac (44 ha) value as a worst-case slender salamander is threatened by slender salamander. We have reviewed assumption, only 2.8 percent of the climate change throughout its range, the petition, scientific literature, potentially suitable habitat on the Tejon now or within the future. information available in our files, and Ranch would be lost to development. Stochastic Events all information submitted to us Indirect effects from development— following our 90-day petition finding including increased human presence, Under this factor we explore whether (74 FR 18336; April 22, 2009). We also runoff and erosion, and predators—are three risks, represented by demographic, consulted with recognized Tehachapi not expected to pose a significant threat genetic, and environmental stochastic slender salamander experts, Federal to the Tehachapi Mountains DPS. events, are substantive to threaten the land managers, and local government, Depending on the nature of the potential continued existence of the Tehachapi and arranged for a recognized impact, the source of the impact is slender salamander within the Caliente Tehachapi slender salamander expert to either far enough removed from any Canyon and the Tehachapi Mountains assess potential threats to the habitat known occurrence or occupied habitat DPSs. Because of the rarity and limited and range of the species relative to so as not to constitute a threat, or there dispersal ability of the species, genetic current and planned land uses and is some other factor, such as the species’ stochasticity is a concern. However, we species occurrences. nocturnal and subfossorial behavior, do not have any evidence of genetic Potential threats include that greatly reduces the potential threat. bottlenecks or inbreeding depression to development, road construction, Therefore, impacts from development indicate that genetic stochasticity is a mining, domestic livestock grazing, are not expected to threaten the significant threat. Nor do we have any introduced species, and flood control Tehachapi Mountains DPS. We do not information to indicate that projects. Based on the best available have any indication that flood control demographic stochasticity or a disease information, we find that there is little projects occur or are planned to occur outbreak is likely to be a significant evidence to support a finding that within either the Caliente Canyon or threat in the foreseeable future. listing either DPS is warranted based on Tehachapi Mountains DPSs. Environmental stochasticity these identified threats. The impact of climate change is a (particularly wildfire) is a concern; While the available information concern for the species, and while there however, we do not believe that this suggests that the number of individuals is uncertainty, we believe that some loss rises to a level that threatens the in each DPS appears to be few and that of occupied habitat will occur because persistence of the species over the long- they are narrowly distributed, we do not of climate change in the more exposed term. have any trend data to indicate that the portions of the canyons salamander. A species may also be affected by number of individuals within each DPS However, we also believe that habitat more than one threat in combination. is in decline, stable, or increasing. will remain in the lower, most-shaded Within the preceding review of the five The range of the Caliente Canyon DPS portions of canyons to support the listing factors, we have identified is primarily on land used for grazing salamander, and in some cases the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62924 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

salamander may be able to shift within range; or (2) what qualifies a portion of listing is the best interpretation of the the canyon in response to climate a range as ‘‘significant.’’ Act because it is consistent with the change. Because of the rarity and Two recent district court decisions purposes and the plain meaning of the limited dispersal ability of the species, have addressed whether the SPR key definitions of the Act; it does not genetic stochasticity is also a concern. language allows the Service to list or conflict with established past agency However, we do not have any evidence protect less than all members of a practice (i.e., prior to the 2007 of genetic bottlenecks or inbreeding defined ‘‘species’’: Defenders of Wildlife Solicitor’s Opinion), as no consistent, depression to indicate that genetic v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. long-term agency practice has been stochasticity is a significant threat. Mont. 2010), concerning the Service’s established; and it is consistent with the There are regulatory mechanisms in delisting of the Northern Rocky judicial opinions that have most closely place, such as CESA, CEQA, and BLM’s Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, Apr. examined this issue. Having concluded special status designation for the 12, 2009); and WildEarth Guardians v. that the phrase ‘‘significant portion of species, that provide adequate Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 its range’’ provides an independent protections for both DPSs of the species (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2010), concerning the basis for listing and protecting the entire given the types and minor degree of Service’s 2008 finding on a petition to species, we next turn to the meaning of potential threats faced by the species. list the Gunnison’s prairie dog (73 FR ‘‘significant’’ to determine the threshold Therefore, we find that listing the 6660, Feb. 5, 2008). The Service had for when such an independent basis for Caliente Canyon DPS or the Tehachapi asserted in both of these determinations listing exists. Mountains DPS as threatened or that it had authority, in effect, to protect Although there are potentially many endangered under the Act is not only some members of a ‘‘species,’’ as ways to determine whether a portion of warranted at this time. defined by the Act (i.e., species, a species’ range is ‘‘significant,’’ we subspecies, or DPS), under the Act. Both conclude, for the purposes of this And finally, we determined that both courts ruled that the determinations finding, that the significance of the of the DPSs are not affected were arbitrary and capricious on the portion of the range should be cumulatively by all of the five factors. grounds that this approach violated the determined based on its biological Therefore, based on our conclusions for plain and unambiguous language of the contribution to the conservation of the each of the five factors singly and Act. The courts concluded that reading species. For this reason, we describe the cumulatively, we find that there are no the SPR language to allow protecting threshold for ‘‘significant’’ in terms of threats of sufficient imminence, only a portion of a species’ range is an increase in the risk of extinction for intensity, or magnitude to cause a inconsistent with the Act’s definition of the species. We conclude that a substantial decrease in distribution, or ‘‘species.’’ The courts concluded that biologically based definition of loss of viability of either DPS once a determination is made that a ‘‘significant’’ best conforms to the throughout their range. Therefore, we do species (i.e., species, subspecies, or purposes of the Act, is consistent with not find that either DPS is in danger of DPS) meets the definition of judicial interpretations, and best extinction (endangered), or likely to ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened ensures species’ conservation. Thus, for become endangered or threatened species,’’ it must be placed on the list the purposes of this finding, a portion throughout their range within the in its entirety and the Act’s protections of the range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ foreseeable future. Consequently, listing applied consistently to all members of if its contribution to the viability of the the Caliente Canyon DPS or the that species (subject to modification of species is so important that, without Tehachapi Mountains DPS as threatened protections through special rules under that portion, the species would be in or endangered under the Act is not sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act). danger of extinction. warranted at this time. Consistent with that interpretation, We evaluate biological significance Significant Portion of the Range and for the purposes of this finding, we based on the principles of conservation Analysis interpret the phrase ‘‘significant portion biology using the concepts of of its range’’ in the Act’s definitions of redundancy, resiliency, and The Act defines ‘‘endangered species’’ ‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened representation. Resiliency describes the as any species which is ‘‘in danger of species’’ to provide an independent characteristics of a species that allow it extinction throughout all or a significant basis for listing; thus there are two to recover from periodic disturbance. portion of its range,’’ and ‘‘threatened situations (or factual bases) under which Redundancy (having multiple species’’ as any species which is ‘‘likely a species would qualify for listing: a populations distributed across the to become an endangered species within species may be endangered or landscape) may be needed to provide a the foreseeable future throughout all or threatened throughout all of its range; or margin of safety for the species to a significant portion of its range.’’ The a species may be endangered or withstand catastrophic events. definition of ‘‘species’’ is also relevant threatened in only a significant portion Representation (the range of variation to this discussion. The Act defines the of its range. If a species is in danger of found in a species) ensures that the term ‘‘species’’ as follows: ‘‘The term extinction throughout an SPR, it, the species’ adaptive capabilities are ‘species’ includes any subspecies of fish species, is an ‘‘endangered species.’’ conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, and or wildlife or plants, and any distinct The same analysis applies to representation are not independent of population segment [DPS] of any ‘‘threatened species.’’ Therefore, the each other, and some characteristic of a species of vertebrate fish or wildlife consequence of finding that a species is species or area may contribute to all which interbreeds when mature.’’ The endangered or threatened in only a three. For example, distribution across a phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ significant portion of its range is that the wide variety of habitats is an indicator (SPR) is not defined by the statute, and entire species shall be listed as of representation, but it may also we have never addressed in our endangered or threatened, respectively, indicate a broad geographic distribution regulations: (1) The consequences of a and the Act’s protections shall be contributing to redundancy (decreasing determination that a species is either applied across the species’ entire range. the chance that any one event affects the endangered or likely to become so We conclude, for the purposes of this entire species), and the likelihood that throughout a significant portion of its finding, that interpreting the SPR phrase some habitat types are less susceptible range, but not throughout all of its as providing an independent basis for to certain threats, contributing to

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules 62925

resiliency (the ability of the species to threshold, we minimize the degree to its range, we do not need to determine recover from disturbance). None of these which restrictions will be imposed or if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In concepts is intended to be mutually resources expended that do not practice, a key part of the portion status exclusive, and a portion of a species’ contribute substantially to species analysis is whether the threats are range may be determined to be conservation. But we have not set the geographically concentrated in some ‘‘significant’’ due to its contributions threshold so high that the phrase ‘‘in a way. If the threats to the species are under any one of these concepts. significant portion of its range’’ loses essentially uniform throughout its For the purposes of this finding, we independent meaning. Specifically, we range, no portion is likely to warrant determine if a portion’s biological have not set the threshold as high as it further consideration. Moreover, if any contribution is so important that the was under the interpretation presented concentration of threats applies only to portion qualifies as ‘‘significant’’ by by the Service in the Defenders portions of the species’ range that asking whether, without that portion, litigation. Under that interpretation, the clearly would not meet the biologically the representation, redundancy, or portion of the range would have to be based definition of ‘‘significant,’’ such resiliency of the species would be so so important that current imperilment portions will not warrant further impaired that the species would have an there would mean that the species consideration. increased vulnerability to threats to the would be currently imperiled Tehachapi Slender Salamander point that the overall species would be everywhere. Under the definition of in danger of extinction (i.e., would be ‘‘significant’’ used in this finding, the The Caliente Canyon and the ‘‘endangered’’). Conversely, we would portion of the range need not rise to Tehachapi Mountains DPSs together not consider the portion of the range at such an exceptionally high level of constitute the entirety of the range of the issue to be ‘‘significant’’ if there is biological significance. (We recognize Tehachapi slender salamander. The sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and that if the species is imperiled in a distinct and geographically separate representation elsewhere in the species’ portion that rises to that level of areas occupied, respectively, by the range that the species would not be in biological significance, then we should Caliente Canyon DPS and the Tehachapi danger of extinction throughout its conclude that the species is in fact Mountains DPS, constitute the two range if the population in that portion imperiled throughout all of its range, significant portions of the range of the of the range in question became and that we would not need to rely on Tehachapi slender salamander. extirpated (extinct locally). the SPR language for such a listing.) Significant threats to either DPS would constitute a significant threat to the We recognize that this definition of Rather, under this interpretation we ask Tehachapi slender salamander in a ‘‘significant’’ establishes a threshold whether the species would be significant portion of its range. We have that is relatively high. On the one hand, endangered everywhere without that previously determined, however, that given that the consequences of finding portion, i.e., if that portion were a species to be endangered or threatened neither DPS is threatened or endangered completely extirpated. In other words, in an SPR would be listing the species across its range. Therefore, we conclude the portion of the range need not be so throughout its entire range, it is that the Tehachapi slender salamander important that even being in danger of important to use a threshold for is not in danger of extinction or likely extinction in that portion would be ‘‘significant’’ that is robust. It would not to become endangered in the foreseeable sufficient to cause the remainder of the be meaningful or appropriate to future, in a significant portion of its range to be endangered; rather, the establish a very low threshold whereby range. complete extirpation (in a hypothetical a portion of the range can be considered We acknowledge that the Ninth future) of the species in that portion ‘‘significant’’ even if only a negligible Circuit Court of Appeals decision in would be required to cause the increase in extinction risk would result Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 from its loss. Because nearly any portion remainder of the range to be F.3d 1136 (2001) can be interpreted to of a species’ range can be said to endangered. require that in determining whether a contribute some increment to a species’ The range of a species can species is threatened or endangered viability, use of such a low threshold theoretically be divided into portions in throughout a significant portion of its would require us to impose restrictions an infinite number of ways. However, range, the Service should consider and expend conservation resources there is no purpose to analyzing whether lost historical range (as disproportionately to conservation portions of the range that have no opposed to current range) constitutes a benefit: Listing would be rangewide, reasonable potential to be significant significant portion of the range of the even if only a portion of the range of and threatened or endangered. To species at issue. While this is not our minor conservation importance to the identify only those portions that warrant interpretation of the statute, we species is imperiled. On the other hand, further consideration, we determine conclude that there are no such areas for it would be inappropriate to establish a whether there is substantial information the Tehachapi slender salamander, the threshold for ‘‘significant’’ that is too indicating that: (1) The portions may be Caliente Canyon DPS, or the Tehachapi high. This would be the case if the ‘‘significant,’’ and (2) the species may be Mountains DPS. As we discussed in standard were, for example, that a in danger of extinction there or likely to detail in our assessment of threats to portion of the range can be considered become so within the foreseeable future. each species, there is no evidence of ‘‘significant’’ only if threats in that Depending on the biology of the species, meaningful range contraction for the portion result in the entire species’ its range, and the threats it faces, it species; in fact, the range of the Caliente being currently endangered or might be more efficient for us to address Canyon DPS and therefore, the species threatened. Such a high bar would not the significance question first or the is now known to be larger than give the SPR phrase independent status question first. Thus, if we previously believed. Therefore, we do meaning, as the Ninth Circuit held in determine that a portion of the range is not believe the species is threatened or Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to endangered in a significant portion of its F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). determine whether the species is range due to lost historical habitat. The definition of ‘‘significant’’ used in endangered or threatened there; if we We next evaluate whether there are this finding carefully balances these determine that the species is not any significant portions of the ranges of concerns. By setting a relatively high endangered or threatened in a portion of either the Caliente Canyon DPS or the

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 62926 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Tehachapi Mountains DPS where the consideration. Our analysis indicates We do not find that the Caliente species is in danger of extinction or is that the conservation status of the Canyon DPS or the Tehachapi likely to become endangered in the Tehachapi Mountains DPS is essentially Mountains DPS is in danger of foreseeable future. the same throughout its range; there is extinction now, nor do we find that no area within the range of the DPS either DPS is likely to become Caliente Canyon DPS where potential threats to this species endangered within the foreseeable The Caliente Canyon DPS consists of are significantly concentrated or are future throughout all or a significant sections of five canyons, totaling about substantially greater than in other portion of its range. Therefore, listing 9 linear mi (14.5 km). To determine portions of the range. And, as we the Caliente Canyon DPS or the whether the Caliente Canyon DPS is explained in detail in our analysis of the Tehachapi Mountains DPS as threatened threatened in a significant portion of its status of the species, none of the threats or endangered under the Act is not range, we first addressed whether any faced by the species, alone or in warranted at this time. portions of the range of the DPS warrant combination, are sufficient to place it in further consideration. Our analysis We request that you submit any new danger of extinction now (endangered) information concerning the status of, or indicates that the conservation status of or in the foreseeable future (threatened). threats to, these species to our Ventura the Caliente Canyon DPS is essentially A large development project (Tejon Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES the same throughout its range; there is Ranch TMV project) is planned within no area within the range of the DPS the general vicinity of half of the section) whenever it becomes available. where potential threats to this species occurrences of the Tehachapi New information will help us monitor are significantly concentrated or are Mountains DPS. However, the TMV this species and encourage its substantially greater than in other development envelope is configured to conservation. If an emergency situation portions of the range. And, as we avoid all known occurrences and develops for this or any other species, explained in detail in our analysis of the occupied habitat of the species within we will act to provide immediate status of the species, none of the threats this DPS. The TMV project, if protection. faced by the species, alone or in implemented, will likely affect 108 ac References Cited combination, are sufficient to place it in (44 ha) out of the estimated 3,797 ac danger of extinction now (endangered) (1,537 ha) (or less than three percent) of A complete list of references cited is or in the foreseeable future (threatened). habitat that may be suitable for the available on the Internet at http:// The main potential threat to the Caliente Tehachapi Mountains DPS on Tejon www.regulations.gov and upon request Canyon DPS is livestock grazing, which Ranch. We do not have evidence that from the Ventura Fish and Wildlife occurs throughout most of the range of the 108 ac (44 ha) of potentially suitable Office (see ADDRESSES section). habitat likely to be affected by the TMV this DPS; however, the impacts of Author grazing to the species are minor and are project is significant to the survival and not concentrated in any geographic recovery of the DPS. The five occupied The primary authors of this notice are portion of the range of the DPS. For canyons that make up the Tehachapi the staff of the Ventura Fish and these reasons, we find that there are no Mountains DPS are widely distributed Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). portions of the Caliente Canyon DPS’s across the DPS’s range. We found no evidence that individuals of this DPS Authority: The authority for this action is range that warrant further consideration section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of as significant portions of the range. are concentrated in any geographic 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). portion of the range that would increase Tehachapi Mountains DPS the vulnerability of this DPS to a Dated: September 23, 2011. To determine whether the Tehachapi particular threat. For these reasons, we Rowan Gould, Mountains DPS is threatened in a find that there are no portions of the Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife significant portion of its range, we also Tehachapi Mountains DPS’s range that Service. first addressed whether any portions of warrant further consideration as [FR Doc. 2011–25522 Filed 10–7–11; 8:45 am] the range of the DPS warrant further significant portions of the range. BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

VerDate Mar<15>2010 21:23 Oct 07, 2011 Jkt 226001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\11OCP2.SGM 11OCP2 srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2