[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35951-35956]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14084]
[[Page 35951]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
for a Petition to List the Southern Torrent Salamander in California as
Endangered or Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding for a petition to list the southern torrent salamander
(Rhyacotriton variegatus) in northern California and southern Oregon
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. After review of
all available scientific and commercial information, we find that
listing the southern torrent salamander is not warranted at this time.
The finding is based on the following information: The species still
occurs throughout its entire historical range; the species persists in
its habitats after habitat alterations have occurred, including
logging; the lack of information on short-and long-term population
trends for the species across its range; the adverse impacts to the
species from logging, construction of logging roads, and logging
related activities do not threaten the survival of the species; the
lack of substantial information indicating that overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes adversely
impacts the species; the lack of evidence showing conclusively that
predation is a threat to the species' survival; current regulatory
practices do not constitute a threat to the survival of the species;
and the lack of information that the species is threatened by low gene
flow and low genetic diversity across its range.
DATES: The finding for this document was made on May 31, 2000. Comments
and information may be submitted until further notice.
ADDRESSES: Data, information, comments, and material concerning the
petition finding may be submitted to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage
Way, W-2605, Sacramento, California 95825-1864. The 12-month petition
finding, supporting data, and comments are available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the above
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ann Chrisney or Ms. Jan Knight at
the above address or telephone (916) 414-6600.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (Act), requires that, for any petition
to revise the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants
that presents substantial scientific and commercial information, we
make a finding within 12 months of the date of the receipt of the
petition on whether the petitioned action is (a) not warranted, (b)
warranted, or (c) warranted but precluded from an immediate proposal by
other pending proposals of higher priority. Such 12-month findings are
to be published promptly in the Federal Register.
On May 31, 1994, we received a petition from Stephan Volker, dated
May 24, 1994, to list the southern torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton
variegatus) as threatened. Mr. Volker is an attorney representing the
Environmental Protection Information Center, North Coast Environmental
Center, Oregon Natural Resources Council, California Wilderness
Coalition, Friends of the River, South Fork Mountain Defense Committee,
Mendocino Environmental Center, Sierra Club, California Sportfishing
Alliance, Willits Environmental Center, and Ancient Forest Defense
Fund. The petition stated that timber harvesting fragmented the
salamander's habitat on Federal and private lands, decimated its
population, and sharply inhibited its dispersal capability. In a letter
to Mr. Volker, dated June 10, 1994, we explained that, under the
provisions of the Act, we must decide if the petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial information that the requested
action is warranted and, to the maximum extent practicable, make this
finding within 90 days after receiving the petition and promptly
publish it in the Federal Register. On November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982),
we designated the species as a category 2 candidate species. Although
we no longer use this designation, a category 2 candidate was
considered a species for which Federal listing may be appropriate, but
persuasive data on biological vulnerability and threats were not
available to support a proposed listing. Although no mandatory
protection was conferred with this status, the notice of this status
supported the need to conduct research to determine the threats and
vulnerability of the species. On June 29, 1995, we determined that Mr.
Volker's petition presented substantial information that the requested
action may be warranted, and we published an announcement of our
administrative finding (60 FR 33785). At that time, we initiated a
status review of the southern torrent salamander.
Due to a limited budget, listing actions required by court orders,
and other higher listing priorities, we were unable to make a listing
determination on this species in a timely manner. On April 10, 1995, a
moratorium on listing actions (Public Law 104-6) took effect with the
stipulation that no funds could be used to make final listing or
critical habitat determinations. When the moratorium was lifted on
April 26, 1996, a three-tier approach was established to rank the
backlog of listing actions for fiscal year 1996 (May 16, 1996; 61 FR
24722). The 12-month status review for the southern torrent salamander
was designated a Tier 3 activity, the lowest listing priority. On
December 5, 1996, new listing guidance was published for fiscal year
1997 (61 FR 64475) that used a four-tier approach. The 12-month status
review for the southern torrent salamander remained a Tier 3 activity.
However, due to a continuing backlog of listing actions, we focused our
resources on Tier 1 and Tier 2 actions until April 1, 1997. By April 1,
1997, we began to address Tier 3 actions, but a serious backlog of
listing actions still existed. On May 8, 1998, we published the Listing
Priority Guidance for FY 1998 and 1999 (63 FR 25502), and the 12-month
status review for the southern torrent salamander was raised to Tier 2.
Although we published 2 emergency listings, 47 final listings, 10
withdrawals, 48 proposed listings, and 18 petition findings, the
southern torrent salamander was among 22 species with pending 12-month
findings. On October 22, 1999, we published the Final Listing Priority
Guidance for Fiscal Year 2000 (64 FR 57114). The tier approach was
eliminated as a guide for handling our remaining backlog and future
work in the listing program in favor of a priority system that
identified higher priorities for certain listing actions. Processing
administrative findings on petitions, such as the one for the southern
torrent salamander, was designated a fourth priority.
Species Information
Southern torrent salamanders have very specific habitat
requirements of cold, shallow, flowing headwaters in humid coniferous
forests up to an elevation of 1,469 meters (m) (4,820 feet (ft))
(Nussbaum and Tait 1977;
[[Page 35952]]
Nussbaum et al. 1983; Diller and Wallace 1996; Welsh and Lind 1996).
They are most frequently found in seeps, springs, and intermittent
streams (Welsh 1993; Vesely 1996; Olson, in litt. 1999) or shallow
water seeping through moss-covered gravel (Nussbaum et al. 1983) and
appear to avoid open deep water channels (Stebbins 1985; Welsh 1993).
The aquatic larvae usually occur in loose gravel in streambeds, and
semiaquatic adults can be found next to larvae in streams, or under
rocks or debris in saturated streamside habitats (Nussbaum and Tait
1977; Nussbaum et al. 1983).
The southern torrent salamander is very sensitive to desiccation
(losing moisture through the skin) (Ray 1958) and cannot move far from
moist areas. Movements of the southern torrent salamander have been
estimated from 1 to 2.2 m (3 to 6 ft) per year (Welsh and Lind 1992) up
to 50 m (160 ft) per year from permanent water (Good and Wake 1992).
These larger movements, however, are thought to be rare (Good and Wake
1992). Southern torrent salamanders have also been found short
distances from water after heavy rains (Nussbaum et al. 1983). Riparian
areas are thought to be important to the species for foraging (Corn and
Bury 1989) and courtship and reproduction (Nussbaum et al. 1983). If
terrestrial visits are important for feeding, reproduction, and
dispersal, then shade and high surface water availability are needed to
allow for movement within these riparian areas.
Southern torrent salamanders can grow to approximately 9.5
centimeters (3.75 inches) in length (Good and Wake 1992). They have a
low tolerance for high temperatures and are typically found in areas
with temperatures between 5.8 and 12.0 degrees centigrade ( deg.C) (10
to 22 degrees Fahrenheit ( deg.F)) (Brattstrom 1963; Nussbaum et al.
1983). Lethal temperatures occur above 17.2 deg.C (63 deg.F) (Welsh
and Lind 1996).
Southern torrent salamanders have a lengthy larval period of 3 to
3.5 years (Nussbaum and Tait 1977) and require an additional 1 to 1.5
years after metamorphosis to become sexually mature (Nussbaum and Tait
1977). Southern torrent salamanders are probably communal nesters, as
other torrent salamanders may be (Nussbaum 1969), producing an average
of 8.4 to 10.0 eggs each year (Nussbaum et al. 1983). The southern
torrent salamander's food is primarily aquatic and semiaquatic
invertebrates (Bury and Martin 1967).
The spaces between cobble or pebble-size stones found in streams
appear to provide refuge for salamanders from predators, such as fish
and Pacific giant salamanders (Dicamptodon ensatus). Southern torrent
salamanders are not frequently found in streams where large Pacific
giant salamanders or fish are found. If southern torrent salamanders do
occur in these streams, they are usually found in the margins where
they can find cover, away from the deep pools and glides (Welsh 1993;
Welsh and Olivier 1992; Welsh, pers. comm. 1995; Olson, pers. comm.
1995). Another potential predator of salamanders may include garter
snakes (Nussbaum et al. 1983.)
Southern torrent salamanders have a patchy distribution across
their range (Welsh and Lind 1992). Suitable habitat is naturally
limited by the geology and topography of an area. While the southern
torrent salamander may be locally abundant in certain areas, salamander
populations are not found in all apparently suitable habitats. During
surveys of apparently suitable habitats, researchers detect southern
torrent salamanders only 20 to 80 percent of the time. This low level
of detection may be due to the fact that random sampling techniques of
suitable habitats may not provide an accurate picture of the southern
torrent salamander occurrence due to the inherent patchiness of their
distribution. Populations of the species may be disjunct due to
geographical variations, microhabitat variability, or historical land
management practices. Density estimates range widely from 0.04
individuals up to 41 individuals per square meter (11 square feet)
(Nussbaum and Tait 1977; Corn and Bury 1989).
The range of the southern torrent salamander occurs within the
coastal conifer forest belt of northern California and southern Oregon,
specifically from southern Mendocino County, California, through the
Coast Ranges, to the Little Nestucca River and the Grande Ronde Valley
in Polk, Tillamook, and Yamhill Counties, Oregon (Good and Wake 1992).
An isolated population exists on the west slope of the Cascade
Mountains near Steamboat in Douglas County, Oregon, approximately 112
kilometers (70 miles) inland (Good and Wake 1992; B. Bury, National
Biological Survey, pers. comm. 1995). Several new populations of
southern torrent salamanders have been detected north of the Steamboat
population on the south side of the Willamette River. These populations
represent an extension of the known range (R.S. Wagner, United States
Geological Service, Biological Research Division, pers. comm. 1998).
Another disjunct population is thought to occur in south central
Siskiyou County, California, based on specimens in the Chico State
University Museum that date back to the 1950s (H. Welsh, Forest
Service, pers. comm. 1994). Good and Wake (1992) described this species
as one of the most common members of the salamander fauna through much
of its range.
According to the petitioner, 98 percent of the historical records
of the southern torrent salamander in the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology
(MVZ), University of California, Berkeley, represent only 42
populations detected in protected rights-of-way, county highways, or in
State and national parklands that include less than 5 percent of the
total range of the species. The MVZ records were collected from 1935 to
1989, with the majority (70 percent) collected after 1970. Our review
of these records revealed approximately 151 sites where southern
torrent salamanders were detected. The most recent location data
obtained for this review, from a variety of formal and informal surveys
conducted from 1987 to 1998, indicated approximately 781 sites
containing southern torrent salamanders across its historical range
from north-central Oregon to northern California. We expect some
overlap in the sites documented in these two groups of data, but the
level of overlap has not been analyzed. In addition, we have not
attempted to define populations from this location information. Surveys
for southern torrent salamanders across their range were conducted by
Good and Wake (1992) and Wagner (in litt. 1998) and, in California, by
Welsh (Welsh 1990; Welsh and Lind 1992; Welsh, in litt. 1998).
According to Wake (University of California, pers. comm. 1995),
southern torrent salamanders are found throughout their historical
range.
Threats Analysis
Habitat
The petition to list the southern torrent salamander cited habitat
fragmentation, population declines, and inhibited dispersal capability
throughout the species' range as significant threats to the species.
The petitioner suggested that large-scale timber harvesting is
eliminating many subpopulations through destruction of required
habitats. The petitioner further suggested that this species may
require conditions and attributes unique to headwater streams in mature
and old-growth forests and the species has minimal ability to withstand
and recover from radical habitat alterations.
Evidence indicates that timber harvesting and road building
negatively affect habitat requirements of the
[[Page 35953]]
southern torrent salamander (permanent water, rocky substrates, and low
water temperatures). The direct effects of these activities include
disturbance of substrate and killing of individual salamanders.
Indirect effects include sedimentation of substrate used by the
salamanders, increase in water temperatures to lethal levels, potential
loss of permanent water flow, and potential increase in predator
populations. Suitable habitat conditions and attributes for the
southern torrent salamander appear to be more readily available in
unlogged mature and old-growth forests than in logged areas (Welsh
1990; Diller 1996). In logged areas, the abundance of salamanders is
lower or they are not detected at all, which indicates that logging may
depress or locally extirpate these populations (Corn and Bury 1989;
Welsh and Lind 1992). However, while some research has revealed
negative impacts of logging and road construction on southern torrent
salamander populations, other research and survey information indicates
southern torrent salamanders still persist in some habitats that were
logged 14 to 60 years ago (Nussbaum and Tait 1977; Corn and Bury 1989;
Welsh and Lind 1992; Olson, in litt. 1994; Chinnici, in litt. 1995;
Diller, in litt. 1995; Pious, in litt. 1995; Wright, in litt. 1995; J.
Ambrose, Georgia-Pacific Corporation, pers. comm. 1995; J. Applegarth,
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), pers. comm. 1995; S. Hopkins, BLM,
pers. comm. 1995; K. Wright, BLM, pers. comm. 1995). Whether the
species is recolonizing these areas or whether its long lifespan
enables it to persist in marginal habitats until conditions improve is
unknown. Factors that may mitigate lethal water temperatures in logged
areas include the retention of deciduous vegetation and unmerchantable
trees, cool water from underground springs, cool microclimates on
north-or east-facing slopes, and coastal fog. Sedimentation of the
substrate may be mitigated by the flushing of these sediments in higher
gradient streams. Some research has reported a positive relationship
between stream gradient and the presence of southern torrent
salamanders in logged habitats (Welsh 1993; Welsh and Ollivier 1992;
Diller 1996). The southern torrent salamander may also be capable of
burrowing vertically in the substrate to find moist, cool conditions.
We agree that widespread logging of headwater habitats has negative
impacts on southern torrent salamander populations through the
destruction of suitable habitats. However, under certain circumstances,
populations appear to be persisting in altered habitats. We also
believe that State and Federal agencies provide varying degrees of
protective measures for maintaining aquatic and riparian habitats on
forested lands (California Department of Forestry (CDF) 1992; USDA et
al. 1993; Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) 1994; USDA and USDI
1994a). The threat to this species from habitat destruction is directly
related to protection provided by State, Federal, and private
regulatory measures for timber harvest activities.
Federal Regulations for Timber Harvest
The trend of large-scale logging of mature and old-growth forests
on public lands within the range of the southern torrent salamander has
diminished since the Federal listing of the northern spotted owl (Strix
occidentalis caurina) in 1990 (55 FR 26192). This trend toward lower
timber production and less regeneration logging is reflected in the
standards and guidelines for land management in the Record of Decision
for the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI 1994a) and in Endangered
Species Act consultations by us on timber sales and National Forest
Land Management Plans (A. Brickey, Service, pers. comm. 2000; N. Lee,
Service, pers. comm. 2000). Although clearcutting could mean an
increase in timber production on private lands, clearcutting vast areas
within a drainage is generally no longer a common or commonly accepted
practice. Forest ecosystems are typically able to recover from small-
scale disturbances, and the effects of timber harvest diminish as
forests regenerate.
Public Land Regulations
We estimate that approximately 41 percent of the total range of the
southern torrent salamander occurs on federally managed public forest
lands in both Oregon and California (summarized from Davis et al. 1998;
Kagan et al. 1999). A Forest Conference was convened by President
Clinton in 1993 to resolve forest resource issues in the Pacific
Northwest. As a result, a group of interdisciplinary, interagency
experts, known as the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team
(FEMAT), came together to develop a comprehensive management plan for
more than 137,128 hectares (ha) (24 million acres (ac)) of public
forest lands. The outcomes were the FEMAT Report (USDA et al. 1993), a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) (USDA and USDI
1994b), and, ultimately, a Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA and USDI
1994a) that amended the planning documents of 19 national forests and 7
BLM Districts to implement an alternative that became known as the
Northwest Forest Plan (Forest Plan). The FEMAT reports a total of 37
percent of the southern torrent salamander's range on Federal lands and
63 percent on State and private lands, an estimate very similar to that
developed during this review (41 percent and 59 percent respectively).
One of the reasons identified in the petition to list the southern
torrent salamander is a lack of protection for headwater habitats where
this species is known to occur. The petitioner claims that 90 percent
of the range of the southern torrent salamander is on lands that are
harvestable or have been harvested. Referencing the FEMAT report, the
petition states that ``37 percent of the range of this salamander
occurs on Federal lands, while 27 percent is on lands in the matrix
(harvestable areas).'' The petitioner's subsequent conclusion appears
to be that the 27 percent of the total range of the species that occurs
on public lands, plus the 63 percent of the species' range occurring on
private lands (90 percent of the species' complete range) is open to
harvest or has been harvested. We do not agree with this interpretation
of the FEMAT report. Appendix Table IV-C-9 in the FEMAT report
indicates that the percentage of land designated as matrix under the
Forest Plan represents 25 percent of the 37 percent of the range that
occurs on public lands (USDA et al. 1993). This amount is equal to less
than 10 percent of the entire range of the species. The remaining 75
percent of the species' range on public lands occurs almost entirely in
withdrawn areas or reserves (approximately 68 percent) and Adaptive
Management Areas (approximately 6 percent) (USDA et al. 1993).
Furthermore, as described in the FEMAT report, the SEIS, and the
ROD, all aquatic/riparian habitats on public lands covered by the
Forest Plan are to be protected in riparian reserves. This means that
any land allocations designated in the FEMAT report, including matrix
lands, that include aquatic or riparian habitat are contained in
riparian reserves that are designed to protect riparian and aquatic
components from actions that will negatively impact them (M. Raphael,
Forest Service, pers. comm. 1995). Therefore, the 27 percent figure
quoted in the petition as salamander habitat that is at risk within
matrix lands fails to take into account the riparian reserves
protecting watercourses in the matrix (K. Denton, Forest Service, pers.
comm. 1995). Riparian reserves apply to all streams,
[[Page 35954]]
lakes, ponds, and wetlands on Forest Service and BLM lands within the
range of the northern spotted owl (USDA and USDI 1994b). The primary
purpose of riparian reserves is to protect and maintain riparian
resources and to attain the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation
Strategy, which is part of the Forest Plan. This strategy is
specifically designed to protect headwater tributaries (including
intermittent streams, seeps and springs) and riparian areas (USDA et
al. 1993; USDA and USDI 1994a).
The FEMAT report provides the most current risk analysis of the
southern torrent salamander on public lands and states that
implementation of the Forest Plan, as approved, would result in a very
high likelihood that the majority (74 percent) of southern torrent
salamander habitats on public lands would be well distributed and that
the species population could stabilize, although with some limitation
on interactions among populations. This analysis was based on the
anticipated level of riparian protection in riparian reserves. The
final ROD later doubled the riparian reserve widths for intermittent
streams and wetlands of less than 1 ha (2.4 ac) from 15 to 30 m (50 to
100 ft) or one site-potential tree (the average height of a tree
growing at that site). This change would protect more southern torrent
salamander habitat than evaluated in the FEMAT report.
The Forest Plan has been in effect since April 1994. As of 1995,
riparian reserves were generally being planned according to the intent
of the Forest Plan (M. Boroja, Service, pers. comm. 1995; A. Brickey,
pers. comm. 1995; P. Henson, Service, pers. comm. 1995; S. Livingston,
Service, pers. comm. 1995). The land management agencies recognized
that the procedure to adjust or decrease the widths of riparian
reserves recommended in the Forest Plan was time-consuming, and,
therefore, they did not generally pursue efforts to alter the widths.
Additionally, it appeared that many riparian reserves were increased
due to unstable geology. An interagency monitoring program in 1996 and
1997 evaluated whether the intent of the ROD and its guidelines was
being met. Reports from both years concluded that the Forest Service
and BLM were consistently meeting the intent of the ROD in developing
riparian reserves.
The petitioner suggested that no-entry buffers of 33 m (100 ft) or
the height of one site-potential tree should be established around
small streams and headwaters in old-growth and mature conifer forests.
In the Pacific northwest, timber harvest adjacent to old-growth forests
is estimated to affect the microclimate up to two tree lengths into the
remaining forest stands (Franklin and Forman 1987 in Lehmkulh and
Ruggiero 1991; Harris 1984). Other estimates include microclimate
effects from 30 to 240 m (approximately 100 to 800 ft) into interior
forest, depending on the site and specific microclimate parameters
(Chen et al. 1995 in Vesely 1996). There is general agreement that a
protected buffer zone for streams, seeps, springs, and adjacent
riparian habitat is necessary to maintain microclimates and prevent
sedimentation in these watercourses. Based on the evidence that
southern torrent salamanders appear to stay in very close proximity to
watercourses, we believe the riparian reserve system of the currently
adopted and court-tested Forest Plan provides adequate protective
measures to maintain the quality of most of the riparian and aquatic
habitats for the southern torrent salamander on public lands across the
range of the species.
California Private Land Regulations
Approximately 26 percent of the southern torrent salamander's
entire range occurs on private lands in California and 2 percent on
California State lands. This species is designated as a species of
special concern in California. Special concern status confers no legal
protection for the species, but recognizes that the species should be
closely monitored. In response to a 1994 petition to list the southern
torrent salamander as threatened under State law, the California Fish
and Game Commission (CFGC), in conjunction with California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG), determined on January 8, 1996, that listing
the species as threatened was not warranted (CFGC, in litt. 1996). This
decision was based on the presence of southern torrent salamanders in
degraded habitat, improved logging practices, and inadequate
information on the significance and causes of any population declines.
However, these agencies improved protective measures for this species
through changes in policies and regulations.
During the candidacy period (the period between the time a petition
is accepted by the State and a final determination is required) from
November 1994 to December 1995, training was provided to 64 biologists,
231 private foresters, and 60 CDF inspectors on how to recognize
southern torrent salamander habitat and conduct surveys. The CDFG
reported the following objectives for the 1-year candidacy period: (1)
document as many existing localities as possible on private land and at
historic sites; (2) determine status of populations and habitat (and
metapopulation structure); (3) examine population trends through the
comparisons of managed and unmanaged lands; and (4) determine the
adequacy of current forest practice rules to protect the species and
its habitat (CDFG, in litt. 1995). A sampling protocol was developed to
collect data to meet these objectives (CDFG in litt. 1995). However, to
date, we are unaware of any results from objectives 2, 3, or 4 of the
candidacy period.
Most of the suitable habitat for the southern torrent salamander
occurs in what the CDF designates as Class II streams, which include
perennial streams that are non-fish bearing but contain other aquatic
life (CDF 1992). Protections for Class II streams include 15 to 30 m
(50 to 100 ft) Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones (WLPZ) that retain
at least 50 percent canopy closure, 25 percent overstory conifers, and
75 percent surface cover. No heavy equipment is allowed within the
WLPZ, and roads, landings, and timber falling are limited to protect
the beneficial uses of the watercourse. Any changes in the widths of
the WLPZ or proposed activities within the WLPZ must first be carefully
analyzed and reviewed to ensure protection of the beneficial uses of
the stream. Some persons have speculated that Class II protection may
be adequate to protect the southern torrent salamander and its habitat
in the coastal forests but may not provide adequate protection in the
more arid southern and eastern portions of the range (J. Brode, CDFG,
pers. comm. 1994, Steele, CDFG, pers. comm. 1995).
We are aware that stream classification is highly subjective in the
timber planning process. Habitat for southern torrent salamanders may
also occur along streams that have been classified as Class III
(streams, including seeps and springs, with no aquatic life but capable
of sediment transport). In these areas, obvious aquatic life may not be
apparent, the streams may appear dry, and they may not contain obvious
channels or pools. Although these appear to be Class III streams, they
may often provide suitable habitat for, and contain, the southern
torrent salamander. The water level may be just above the surface or
subsurface, and salamanders may not be detectable at all times of year.
Incorrect classification of streams could potentially result in
application of Class III stream protection measures being applied to
habitats that are likely to contain southern torrent salamanders.
Current protection for Class III streams is not adequate to
[[Page 35955]]
protect southern torrent salamander habitat (CFGC 1994).
The training of biologists and foresters resulted in some increased
awareness of the significance of headwater streams, seeps, and springs
as valuable aquatic habitats requiring Class II protection. Based on
over a decade of field experience in habitat identification and stream
classification in California, K. Moore (CDFG, pers. comm. 2000)
estimates that perhaps 50 percent of suitable seep, spring, and stream
habitat has been recognized and given some level of protection from
logging activities. However, some seeps and springs that have not been
identified as salamander habitat and retain no comprehensive protection
under the State rules are still logged and burned (K. Moore, pers.
comm.1999).
We support a review of the Forest Practice Rules by CDFG and
believe that Class II protection has the potential to provide some
protection for the southern torrent salamander provided habitat is
correctly identified. However, we are concerned about the effectiveness
of timber harvest planning on private lands because of (1) the high
ratio of Emergency and Exemption Notices to regular Timber Harvest
Plans (THP) in California, (2) cumulative impacts not being addressed
in THPs, and (3) a lack of THP enforcement (State of California 1994).
Oregon Private Land Regulations
Private lands in Oregon constitute approximately 31 percent of the
southern torrent salamander's entire range. One percent of the
salamander's range occurs on Oregon State lands. The salamander is
designated as a sensitive species, subcategory vulnerable, by the State
of Oregon. State sensitive classification refers to naturally
reproducing native species that are likely to become threatened or
endangered throughout all or any significant portion of their range in
Oregon (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) 1993). The
vulnerable category implies that listing the species is not imminent
provided that continued or expanded use of protective measures and
monitoring occurs (ODFW 1993). However, the southern torrent salamander
is protected from being killed, harmed, or collected under the Oregon
Administrative Rule section 635-44-130 (Nongame Wildlife Protected)
(ODFW 1991). A State scientific collecting permit is required to take
this species from the field for educational or research purposes (ODFW
1991).
Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF) rules establish Riparian
Management Areas (RMAs) adjacent to all Type D streams (non-fish-
bearing streams with domestic water use) and Type N streams (all other
streams except those fish-bearing streams with domestic water use),
except for small Type N streams. The goal of these buffers is to
protect water quality, hydrological function, and fish and wildlife
habitat by requiring vegetation retention and special management
practices. The RMAs range from 6 to 21 m (20 to 70 ft) and have
retention standards for understory, overstory, snags, and logs. Further
restrictions occur on road construction, yarding, stream crossings, and
stream improvement. The RMAs offer some protection from direct impacts,
but the protections may be too small to compensate for the effects on
microclimates from logging. The areas most at risk are the small Type N
streams where no RMAs are required and restrictions of logging
activities are very flexible and left up to the operator's discretion
in most cases. The few specific management recommendations for small
Type N streams do not apply to the Coast Range and South Coast
geographic regions, where the majority of the southern torrent
salamander range occurs.
RMAs are not required for seeps and springs within the range of the
southern torrent salamander in Oregon. The Oregon Forest Practice Rules
state that operators shall protect hydrological functions of seeps,
springs, and wetlands by minimizing disturbance to soils during forest
operations (ODF 1994). The ODF interprets this rule to mean that no
machinery is allowed in seeps, springs, or wetlands, and citations have
been issued for this violation (J. Runion, ODF, pers. comm. 1995).
Furthermore, the Oregon Forest Practice Rules recognize that amphibians
may occur in small Type N streams and encourage operators to retain
green trees and snags in blocks of intact vegetation of undetermined
size (ODF 1994). The headwater habitats on private land in Oregon are
probably not completely protected from the effects of logging, and some
biologists in Oregon have expressed concerns about this lack of
protection (J. Boechler, ODFW, pers. comm. 1995; R. Krahmer, ODF, pers.
comm. 1995; C. Puchy, ODFW, pers. comm. 1995; K. Wright, pers. comm.
1995).
We believe that existing regulatory measures provide varying
degrees of protection for southern torrent salamander habitat on public
and private lands. The regulatory protection of aquatic and riparian
habitat appears to be generally better on public lands than private
lands and better for streams than for seeps and springs. If we assume
that southern torrent salamander habitat on all Federal lands (41
percent of the total range) has moderate to good protection, that
approximately 50 percent of private land in California (13 percent of
the total range) and 50 percent of private land in Oregon (16 percent
of the total range) and all State lands (3 percent of the total range)
have low to moderate protection, then 73 percent of the total range of
the species is estimated to have some level of regulatory protection.
Although logging began in Pacific Northwest forests almost 200
years ago, State and Federal land management regulations that protect
aquatic and riparian habitats have only been instituted in the last 20
to 30 years. Consequently for approximately 170 years, timber harvest
in aquatic and riparian habitats was virtually unregulated. Therefore,
some populations of southern torrent salamanders have persisted or
recolonized in areas that had no protective buffers when they were
harvested. Whether these individuals recolonized the area after
regrowth of the surrounding vegetation or survived the habitat
alteration is unclear. While the presence of individuals does not
necessarily indicate viable populations, what is known is that both
larvae and adults are being detected across the range of the species.
Based on the species' persistence, the fact that some level of
regulatory protection occurs on an estimated three-quarters of the
species' range, and the current trend in timberland management is away
from clearcutting in riparian areas and toward increasing awareness of
the significance of headwater habitats, we believe that current
regulatory practices, while not ideal, provide sufficient protection to
insure that the existence of the species is not threatened at this
time. While recent improvements in protections of southern torrent
salamander habitats have been implemented on Federal lands, habitats on
private lands are still vulnerable until specific changes in policy and
procedures change the way these habitats are protected. However, future
trends toward protecting aquatic habitats for listed salmonids,
including headwater habitats, should also benefit the southern torrent
salamander. Based on our assumptions stated above concerning estimated
regulatory protections, and the fact that the species appears to be
distributed across its range and is persisting in altered habitats, we
also conclude that habitat destruction or modification is not severe
enough to
[[Page 35956]]
threaten the existence of the species at this time or in the
foreseeable future.
Genetics
The genus Rhyacotriton has always been perceived as genetically
isolated from other genera of salamanders (Good and Wake 1992).
Research by Good and others in 1987 (Good et al. 1987 in Good and Wake
1992) showed ``extreme and unexpectedly high levels of genetic
differentiation'' for Rhyacotriton olympicus, which at that time was
considered a single species over the Pacific Northwest. Good et al.
(1987 in Good and Wake 1992) divided Rhyacotriton into four genetically
different populations. Good and Wake (1992) concluded that four
separate species should be recognized within the genus Rhyacotriton,
one of which is Rhyacotriton variegatus, the southern torrent
salamander.
The genetic diversity within the southern torrent salamander is
evidence of very low gene flow between populations. Good and Wake
(1992) suggest that gene flow between populations of southern torrent
salamanders at the extreme ends of the species' range is not likely to
occur, but that gene flow among adjacent populations of southern
torrent salamanders is what holds the species together as a cohesive
unit. In reference to southern torrent salamander populations, Wake (in
litt. 1994) stated ``the genetic differentiation is strongly structured
geographically, so that there is a pattern of isolation by distance.
What this means is that genetic distance between populations builds
directly as a function of geographic distance.'' In other words, as the
geographical distance between populations increases, populations become
more genetically different and isolated. This finding strongly implies
that animals within each population seldom left their respective
populations or moved between populations over a period of thousands of
years (Wake, in litt. 1994). Therefore, southern torrent salamanders
show a great deal of genetic differentiation between individual animals
from different populations, but show very little differentiation
between individuals within the same population.
Dr. Susan Haig and Steve Wagner of United States Geological Service
in Corvallis, Oregon, have been conducting genetic studies on
mitochondrial DNA sequences of the southern torrent salamander to
investigate the extent of population divergence and the relationships
among populations. The results of these studies will be evaluated after
they have been peer-reviewed and published.
Because of the naturally low gene flow between southern torrent
salamander populations and the great amount of genetic diversity
between individuals within the species, the loss of subpopulations
could mean a significant loss of genetic diversity. Low genetic
diversity within a population or subpopulation is thought to decrease
that group's ability to withstand catastrophic natural events or
manmade impacts. We believe that the most vulnerable populations of
southern torrent salamanders are those found on the southern and
eastern edges of the range. These populations are suspected to be the
most distinct genetically (Wake, in litt. 1994) and the most
susceptible to the negative impacts of timber harvest. Although we
recognize the implications of low genetic diversity for the southern
torrent salamander, until adequate genetic studies are completed,
information is lacking to make a determination that low genetic
diversity and gene flow threaten the continued existence of the
species. We will reevaluate this issue after results of ongoing genetic
studies are available. However, we recommend that populations at the
edge of the range be given high priority for determining population
status and trends.
Conclusion
We recognize that the southern torrent salamander has very specific
habitat requirements, a naturally patchy distribution across its range,
and low gene flow between populations. The southern torrent salamander
is not considered to be dependent solely on old-growth forests, but the
preferred microclimate conditions are more readily available in mature
and old-growth forests. We acknowledge that logging of headwater
habitats in old-growth forests has depressed or extirpated some
populations of this species. However, we believe that the trend of
habitat loss for the southern torrent salamander is lessening across
much of the range with a reduction in clearcutting and with some
increased awareness and some protections of headwater habitats. The
southern torrent salamander is present throughout its historical range,
including populations in altered habitats, despite little or no stream
protection at the time they were logged. Relevant ongoing research is
being conducted on headwater habitats and the southern torrent
salamander, but a current lack of general baseline information exists
on population status and trends, and genetic diversity of the species.
On the basis of the best available scientific and commercial
information, we find that the southern torrent salamander is not likely
to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore,
listing the species as threatened is not warranted at the present time.
The southern torrent salamander will remain as a species of concern for
which evidence of vulnerability exists, but for which substantial data
are lacking to support a proposal to list as threatened or endangered.
We will continue to seek information on the status of the southern
torrent salamander, and, if information becomes available indicating
that listing as endangered or threatened is appropriate, we would
propose to list the salamander. Furthermore, we retain the option of
recognizing a subspecies or a population segment for listing should
information become available indicating that such an action is
appropriate and warranted.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available on
request from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
Author. The primary author of this notice is Ann Chrisney,
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authority: The authority for this section is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: May 31, 2000.
Jamie Rapaport Clark,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 00-14084 Filed 6-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P