[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 149 (Wednesday, August 4, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47212-47248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-17236]



[[Page 47211]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Threatened Status for the California Tiger Salamander; and Special Rule 
Exemption for Existing Routine Ranching Activities; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 149 / Wednesday, August 4, 2004 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 47212]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AI68


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of 
Threatened Status for the California Tiger Salamander; and Special Rule 
Exemption for Existing Routine Ranching Activities

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine 
threatened status for the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma 
californiense), under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). The California tiger salamander, Central population is 
threatened by habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation due 
to urban development and conversion to intensive agriculture. We also 
finalize the 4(d) rule for the species rangewide, which exempts 
existing routine ranching activities.

DATES: This rule is effective September 3, 2004.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this rule is available at U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (SFWO), 2800 
Cottage Way, Suite W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wayne White, Field Supervisor (Attn: 
CTS) telephone: 916/414-6600; facsimile: 916/414-6713.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine threatened 
status for the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), 
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also 
finalize the 4(d) rule for the species rangewide.
    We will also soon publish a proposed rule designating critical 
habitat for the Central California tiger salamander in 20 counties in 
California.
    This rule satisfies the final portion of the settlement agreement 
approved by the Court on June 6, 2002, in Center for Biological 
Diversity v. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (No. C-02-055-WHA (N.D. 
Cal.). The settlement agreement required us, among other things, to 
submit a proposal to list the California tiger salamander throughout 
its remaining range in California (except for the Santa Barbara County 
and Sonoma County Distinct Population Segments) for publication in the 
Federal Register on or before May 15, 2003, and to submit a final 
determination on that proposed rule for publication in the Federal 
Register on or before May 15, 2004. Throughout this rule we will refer 
to the final population addressed by the settlement agreement as the 
Central California tiger salamander. References to the rangewide CTS 
population include the Sonoma and Santa Barbara populations as well as 
the Central population addressed in the settlement agreement.
    On May 14, 2004, the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 
Parks at the U.S. Department of the Interior requested from the Court a 
six-month extension of the May 15, 2004, deadline pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 
1533(b)(6)(B)(i). The request was based upon the Assistant Secretary's 
assessment that there is substantial disagreement regarding the 
sufficiency or accuracy of the available data relevant to the 
determination, including the level of threat due to inadequacy of the 
existing regulatory structure, projected future habitat losses and 
their significance, and the sufficiency or accuracy of data concerning 
extent of population losses and extent of existing populations. The 
Court granted an extension to July 23, 2004, to allow us time to 
resolve the issues raised by the information included in the 
preliminary California Department of Conservation's (CDC) 2004 data on 
rangeland and agricultural land conversion. This final listing 
determination has considered the implications of the information in the 
CDC report for the California tiger salamander. In addition, we have 
considered all other scientific and commercial information available to 
us.

Scientific Disagreement Over Availability of Central California Tiger 
Salamander Habitat Due to Past Conversions

    On June 10, 2004, the United States District Court for the Northern 
District of California granted an extension to the May 15, 2004, 
deadline for the specific purpose of resolving the issue of whether 
there was a 14 percent decrease in grazing land versus an increase in 
such land that would constitute an increase in Central California tiger 
salamander habitat. The Court also stated that the Service must make 
its final determination by July 23, 2004. The issue of habitat trend 
arose from an April 30, 2004, letter from the Central California Tiger 
Salamander Coalition (Coalition) to the Service stating that new 
information was available on the California Department of 
Conservation's (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) 
website. The Coalition stated that this new information indicated that 
grazing land increased by 1,678 ha (4,146 ac) from 2000 to 2002 for ten 
counties located within the range of the Central California tiger 
salamander. The Coalition proposed that these new grazing land areas 
would serve as habitat for the California tiger salamander, which would 
in turn offset the loss of salamander habitat that is being converted 
to intensive agriculture. In their letter, the Coalition concluded that 
the loss of Central California tiger salamander habitat to intensive 
agriculture was not a threat to the species.
    In response to the July 23, 2004, extension, the Center for 
Biological Diversity (Center) sent a letter regarding the issue of 
grazing land and urbanization trends as determined by the FMMP data. In 
their letter, the Center provided information from the most recent 
reporting period (six counties, 2000 to 2002) and information on 13 
counties that did not have 100 percent coverage from 1992 to 2002 (data 
from counties that had 100 percent coverage were presented in their 
comment letter dated September 22, 2003). From the most recent data 
(2000 to 2002), the Center determined that grazing land continued to be 
lost to development and other land use changes. This trend was also 
observed when the data were analyzed for all other counties that did 
not have 100 percent coverage. In their comment letter dated September 
22, 2003, the Center also concluded that many other adverse indirect 
impacts to California tiger salamanders would result from the continued 
expansion of urbanization.
    Thus, while the two groups used the same data from FMMP, they each 
applied different analyses and came up with different results and 
conclusions regarding the future threat to the Central California tiger 
salamander from the conversion of grazing land.
    Following the June 10, 2004, hearing, representatives from the 
Service met with members of the Coalition and the Center on June 29, 
2004, to receive clarification from the Coalition on the issue of 
trends in the acreage of grazing land. At this meeting, the Coalition 
provided the Service with a report entitled, ``Evaluation of Threats to 
CTS from Agricultural Conversion.'' This report provided additional 
information on changes in the acreage of grazing land to intensive 
agriculture using the FMMP data within their suggested range of the 
Central California tiger

[[Page 47213]]

salamander. The Coalition's report also discussed the results of 
meetings with Agricultural Commissioners from six counties to discuss 
future conversion of grazing land to intensive agriculture within their 
respective counties.
    After reviewing the information provided by the Coalition, the 
Center, and our own analysis, we found that all approaches comparing 
total grazing land lost to total grazing land gained for the 10- to 12-
year period indicate a net loss of grazing land for that period. 
Comparing a different set of figures, however, it appears that 
intensively farmed lands have been fallowed at a greater rate than they 
have been reconverted over the last 12 years. It is more difficult to 
determine what this means to the California tiger salamander. It is 
unlikely that all of the grazing land converted to intensive 
agriculture was suitable for salamanders, as some of that could simply 
be reconversion of previously cultivated land, so the magnitude of the 
loss likely is not as large as the numbers indicate. Similarly, it is 
unlikely that the grazing land gained from fallowed agricultural land 
was all suitable for salamanders.
    It is unlikely that the grazing lands formerly under intensive 
agricultural uses would completely regain all value as California tiger 
salamander habitat because wetlands that provide breeding habitat would 
have been destroyed as a result of intensive farming, limiting these 
areas to potential upland habitat. Fallowed agricultural land might, 
depending on how it is managed, provide estivation habitat or open 
space for migration depending on its proximity to breeding habitat. 
Even though the overall rate of conversion of new lands to intensive 
agriculture may be decreasing in the future (see below), any expansion 
of lands under cultivation is most likely to expand into areas adjacent 
to already cultivated areas. Particularly in the San Joaquin Valley, 
the lands at greatest risk to this expansion are the fringes of the 
valley floor which are inhabited by the California tiger salamander. 
Therefore, we conclude that the majority of these newly created grazing 
areas may have some utility for migration or estivation to the extent 
they are adjacent to breeding habitat, but that they do not offset the 
loss of the portion of grazing lands that were suitable California 
tiger salamander habitat. In addition, neither the Coalition nor the 
County Agricultural Commissioners concluded that no California tiger 
salamander habitat would be converted to intensive agricultural uses in 
the foreseeable future, only that the future rates of conversion are 
likely to be lower than they have been in the past. We therefore 
conclude while it may no longer be the primary source that conversion 
of suitable habitat to intensive agriculture remains a source of 
cumulative habitat loss and fragmentation which are primary threats to 
the California tiger salamander.
    The FMMP is a valuable tool for assessing changes in land use over 
time. However, it is also important to use other sources of information 
when determining past habitat trends because of continued improvements 
in mapping technologies and the purpose of each reporting service. We 
found that grazing land has been lost due to urbanization, conversions 
to intensive agriculture, and other land uses. We expect these land use 
trends to continue largely due to the projected increase in human 
population and development, as well as subsequent expansion of 
intensive agriculture, as described in this rule.
    The areas where acreage of grazing land increased represented 
80,267 ha (198,344 ac) over the 10-year period on a county-wide basis. 
Approximately 60,926 ha (150,552 ac, 76 percent) of this increase is 
attributable to cultivated agricultural lands that were fallowed. The 
grazing land increases reported by FMMP are those lands that have been 
fallowed for at least three reporting periods or 6 years. Other grazing 
lands had been previously mapped and reported as urbanized areas, 
mines, or low-density residential developments, which accounted for 
17,608 ha (43,511 ac, 22 percent) of the increase in grazing land. Many 
of these data, including much of the recent data available from FMMP 
(2000 to 2002), indicate that the increase in grazing land areas are 
due to improvements in digital imagery that allowed for a more precise 
distinction between urban boundaries and grazing land (CDC 2002, 2004).
    The FMMP data indicate that there was a substantial decline in 
grazing land in areas, some of which likely represented aquatic and 
upland habitats for the California tiger salamander and some of which, 
such as reconverted fallowed agricultural lands, did not. Because of 
the lower quality of the habitat that may be created from fallowed 
land, it is unlikely that the increase in grazing land during the 1990s 
and early 2000s offset the decline in habitat that occurred as a result 
of the continued trend in grazing land converted to intensive 
agriculture and development.

Future Conversions to Intensive Agriculture

    Using the acreage of grazing land converted to intensive 
agriculture during this period, the Coalition estimated that 68,119 ha 
(168,325 ac) of grazing land would be converted to intensive 
agriculture over the next 25 years based on an estimated rate of loss 
of 2,725 ha (6,733 ac) per year. The Coalition estimated that this 
would result in a 4.1 percent loss (68,119 ha, 168,325 ac) of 
salamander habitat from their estimate of the total amount of available 
Central California tiger salamander habitat (1.7 million ha, 4.1 
million ac). Responses by the Agricultural Commissioners to the 
interviews indicated that they believed that no more than 405 to 809 ha 
(1,000 to 2,000 ac) of grazing land would be converted in their 
counties and that the future loss of grazing land to intensive 
agriculture would be limited due to lack of water, poor soils, and low 
crop prices. The Agricultural Commissioners also expected that the 
majority of future expansions of intensive agriculture would occur 
around the periphery of other intensive agricultural areas.

Summary

    After reviewing data from the 2000-2002 FMMP report, and the 
supporting information submitted by the Center and the Coalition, we 
conclude that the newest data set is consistent with trends identified 
in our habitat analysis for approximately 1990 through 2000, showing 
that rates of habitat loss for California tiger salamander from all 
land use changes have been greater than the rate of other land use 
types ``converting'' to grazing land. We found that between 20 and 25 
percent of the observed increase in grazing lands between 2000 and 2002 
is attributable to better mapping technology. We also found that rates 
of agricultural land being fallowed have been greater than rates of 
fallowed lands being reconverted to cultivation or natural habitat 
being converted to intensive agricultural uses. We conclude that the 
majority of these newly created grazing areas may have some utility for 
migration or estivation, to the extent they are adjacent to breeding 
habitat, or even potential breeding habitat if stockponds are 
eventually installed, but they do not offset the loss of the portion of 
grazing lands that were suitable habitat for the California tiger 
salamander habitat; however, rates of habitat conversion to intensive 
agriculture are likely to be lower in the future than they have been in 
the past.

[[Page 47214]]

Description and Life History of the California Tiger Salamander

    Systematics and species description. The California tiger 
salamander was first described as Ambystoma californiense by Gray in 
1853 based on specimens that had been collected in Monterey, California 
(Grinnell and Camp 1917). Storer (1925) and Bishop (1943) also 
considered the California tiger salamander to be a distinct species. 
Dunn (1940), Gehlbach (1967), and Frost (1985) believed the California 
tiger salamander was a subspecies of the more widespread tiger 
salamander (A. tigrinum). However, based on recent studies of the 
genetics, geographic distribution, and ecological differences among the 
members of the A. tigrinum complex, the California tiger salamander has 
been determined to represent a distinct species (Shaffer and Stanley 
1991; Jones 1993; Shaffer et al. 1993; Shaffer and McKnight 1996; 
Irschick and Shaffer 1997; Petranka 1998). The range of this amphibian 
does not naturally overlap with any other species of tiger salamander 
(Stebbins 1985; Petranka 1998).
    The California tiger salamander is a large and stocky terrestrial 
salamander with small eyes and a broad, rounded snout. Adults may reach 
a total length of 208 millimeters (mm) (8.2 inches (in)), with males 
generally averaging about 203 mm (8 in) in total length, and females 
averaging about 173 mm (6.8 in) in total length. For both sexes, the 
average snout-to-vent length is approximately 91 mm (3.6 in). The small 
eyes have black irises and protrude from the head. Coloration consists 
of white or pale yellow spots or bars on a black background on the back 
and sides. The belly varies from almost uniform white or pale yellow to 
a variegated pattern of white or pale yellow and black. Males can be 
distinguished from females, especially during the breeding season, by 
their swollen cloacae (a common chamber into which the intestinal, 
urinary, and reproductive canals discharge), larger tails, and larger 
overall size (Stebbins 1962; Loredo and Van Vuren 1996).
    Distribution and genetics. California tiger salamander breeding and 
estivation habitat includes vernal pools, and seasonal and perennial 
ponds and surrounding upland areas in grassland and oak savannah plant 
communities from sea level to about 1,067 meters (m) (3,600 feet (ft)) 
(Stebbins 1989; Shaffer et al. 1993; Jennings and Hayes 1994; Petranka 
1998; California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) 2003; Bobzien in 
litt. 2003; Service 2004). Along the Coast Ranges, the species occurs 
in the Santa Rosa area of Sonoma County, southern San Mateo County 
south to San Luis Obispo County, and the vicinity of northwestern Santa 
Barbara County (CNDDB 2003). In the Central Valley and surrounding 
Sierra Nevada foothills and Coast Range, the species occurs from 
northern Yolo County (Dunnigan) southward to northwestern Kern County 
and northern Tulare and Kings Counties (CNDDB 2003). This final rule 
lists the California tiger salamander rangewide as threatened including 
the Central California tiger salamander population as required by the 
court and the former DPSs located in Sonoma and Santa Barbara counties, 
which were listed as endangered (see Previous Federal Action section 
below) as well as the remaining population of the California tiger 
salamander as required by the court.
    Other records of tiger salamanders from Lake and Mono Counties 
outside the range of the Central California tiger salamander have been 
identified as non-native tiger salamanders (Shaffer et al. 1993). 
Salamanders at Grass Lake in Siskiyou County (Mullen and Stebbins 1978) 
have been identified as the northwestern tiger salamander (A. t. 
melanostictum) (H.B. Shaffer, University of California, Davis pers. 
comm. 1998).
    We note several historical occurrences of the salamander outside 
its current range. In the northeastern Sacramento Valley, there is a 
single occurrence located at the Gray Lodge Waterfowl Management Area 
in southern Butte County and northern Sutter County, and there is also 
a single occurrence located in Glenn County; both of these records are 
from the mid 1960s (CNDDB 2003). There are two records from 1939 and 
another, from an unknown date, of salamanders observed on the edge of 
the range in south western San Luis Obispo County (CNDDB 2003; Shaffer 
and Trenham 2004). There is also a historic record of the California 
tiger salamander that occurs outside the species' range, which is from 
Riverside County recorded in the late 1800s. Subsequent surveys have 
not been able to verify the presence of tiger salamanders from any of 
those locations (Stebbins 1989; Shaffer et al. 1993; M. Root, USFWS, 
pers. comm. 2004).
    Although the area between Butte County and the Cosumnes River 
contains suitable vernal pools and has been surveyed extensively, the 
species has only been recorded along the southern edge of Sacramento 
County, south of the Cosumnes River (CNDDB 2003). In a survey transect 
that extended along the west side of the Sacramento Valley from Shasta 
County to Solano County, containing 35 kilometers (km) (22 miles (mi)) 
of vernal pool habitat and over 200 pools, California tiger salamanders 
were recorded only at the Jepson Prairie in Solano County (Simovich et 
al. 1993). In the East Bay area, the California tiger salamander 
generally does not occur west of Interstate Highway 680, south of 
Interstate Highway 580, or north of State Highway 4 in Contra Costa or 
Alameda Counties (LSA Associates, Inc. 2001; CNDDB 2003). It is likely 
that the species is uncommon or absent in much of the southernmost San 
Joaquin Valley because of unsuitable habitat. This includes areas to 
the south of Los Banos in Merced County, and the foothills of the 
Sierra Nevada south of Visalia in Tulare County (Shaffer et al. 1993).
    The factors that restrict the California tiger salamander in the 
northern and southern extent of its range are not fully understood 
(H.B. Shaffer, pers. comm. 2002), but may include low rainfall in the 
southern San Joaquin Valley and the greater abundance of non-native 
predatory fish in the northern Sacramento Valley (Hayes 1977). Studies 
suggest that the present patchy distribution pattern was caused by a 
combination of the extreme anthropogenic changes in and around the 
Central Valley, and the restrictive breeding requirements of the 
species (Dahl 1990; Fisher and Shaffer 1995; Frayer et al. 1989; 
Holland 1978, 1998; Jones and Stokes 1987; Shaffer et al. 1993; Trenham 
et al. 2000). Because there are only a few historic collections of the 
species made during the 1800s, and the majority of collections have 
occurred in the last 25 years (CNDDB 2003) subsequent to significant 
changes in historic habitat types (Shaffer et al. 1993), we do not have 
good documentation of the historic distribution of the California tiger 
salamander. We have based the analysis in this listing on estimated 
current distribution and habitat availability and assumed the available 
habitat is populated.
    Reproduction and larval growth. Adult California tiger salamanders 
mate in vernal pools and similar water bodies, and the females lay 
their eggs in the water (Twitty 1941; Shaffer et al. 1993; Petranka 
1998). In the East Bay area, California tiger salamanders may lay eggs 
twice, once in December and the second time in February (Bobzien in 
litt. 2003). Females attach their eggs singly or, in rare 
circumstances, in groups of two to four, to twigs, grass stems, 
vegetation, or debris (Storer 1925; Twitty 1941). In ponds with little 
or no vegetation, females may attach eggs to

[[Page 47215]]

objects, such as rocks and boards on the bottom (Jennings and Hayes 
1994). After breeding, adults leave the pool and return to small mammal 
burrows in surrounding uplands (Loredo et al. 1996; Trenham 1998a), 
although they may continue to come out nightly for approximately the 
next two weeks to feed (Shaffer et al. 1993). In drought years, the 
seasonal pools may not form and the adults may not breed (Barry and 
Shaffer 1994).
    The eggs hatch in 10 to 14 days with newly hatched salamanders 
(larvae) ranging in size from 11.5 to 14.2 mm (0.5 to 0.6 in) in total 
length (Petranka 1998). The larvae are aquatic. Each is yellowish gray 
in color and has a broad fat head, large, feathery external gills, and 
broad dorsal fins that extend well onto its back. The larvae feed on 
zooplankton, small crustaceans, and aquatic insects for about six weeks 
after hatching, after which they switch to larger prey (J. Anderson 
1968). Larger larvae have been known to consume smaller tadpoles of 
Pacific treefrogs (Pseudacris regilla) and California red-legged frogs 
(Rana aurora) (J. Anderson 1968). The larvae are among the top aquatic 
predators in the seasonal pool ecosystems. They often rest on the 
bottom in shallow water, but also may be found at different layers in 
the water column in deeper water. The young salamanders are wary; when 
approached by potential predators, they will dart into vegetation on 
the bottom of the pool (Storer 1925).
    The larval stage of the California tiger salamander usually lasts 
three to six months, because most seasonal ponds and pools dry up 
during the summer (Petranka 1998), although some larvae in Contra Costa 
and Alameda Counties may remain in their breeding sites over the summer 
(Alvarez in litt. 2003; Bobzien in litt. 2003; Shaffer and Trenham 
2004). The absence of sexually mature paedomorphic larvae (mature 
adults that retain larval characteristics) suggests that the California 
tiger salamander is unable to express this life history trait, 
presumably because most of their evolutionary history has been spent in 
seasonal vernal pool habitats (Shaffer and Trenham 2004).
    Amphibian larvae must grow to a critical minimum body size before 
they can metamorphose (change into a different physical form) to the 
terrestrial stage (Wilbur and Collins 1973). Larvae collected near 
Stockton in the Central Valley during April varied from 47 to 58 mm 
(1.9 to 2.3 in) in length (Storer 1925). Feaver (1971) found that 
larvae metamorphosed and left the breeding pools 60 to 94 days after 
the eggs had been laid, with larvae developing faster in smaller, more 
rapidly drying pools. The longer the inundation period, the larger the 
larvae and metamorphosed juveniles are able to grow, and the more 
likely they are to survive and reproduce (Semlitsch et al. 1988; 
Pechmann et al. 1989; Morey 1998; Trenham 1998b). The larvae perish if 
a site dries before they complete metamorphosis (P. Anderson 1968; 
Feaver 1971). Pechmann et al. (1989) found a strong positive 
correlation between inundation period and total number of 
metamorphosing juvenile amphibians, including tiger salamanders. In 
Madera County, Feaver (1971) found that only 11 of 30 pools sampled 
supported larval California tiger salamanders, and five of these dried 
before metamorphosis could occur. Therefore, out of the original 30 
pools, only six (20 percent) provided suitable conditions for 
successful reproduction that year. Size at metamorphosis is positively 
correlated with stored body fat and survival of juvenile amphibians, 
and negatively correlated with age at first reproduction (Semlitsch et 
al. 1988; Scott 1994; Morey 1998).
    Lifetime reproductive success for California and other tiger 
salamanders is low. Trenham et al. (2000) found the average female bred 
1.4 times and produced 8.5 young that survived to metamorphosis per 
reproductive effort. This resulted in roughly 11 metamorphic offspring 
over the lifetime of a female. Most California tiger salamanders in 
this study did not reach sexual maturity until four or five years old 
(Trenham et al. 2000). While individuals may survive for more than 10 
years, many breed only once, and one study estimated that less than 
five percent of metamorphic juveniles survive to become breeding adults 
(Trenham 1998b). The mechanisms for recruitment are clearly dependent 
on a number of factors such as migration, terrestrial survival, and 
population turnover, whose interaction is not well understood (Trenham 
1998b).
    Breeding habitat. The salamanders breeding in, and living around, a 
seasonal or perennial pool or pond and associated uplands utilized 
during the dry months are said to occupy a breeding site. A breeding 
site is defined as a location where the animals are able to 
successfully breed in years of normal rainfall and survive during the 
dry months of the year. The primary historic breeding sites used by 
California tiger salamanders included vernal pools and other natural 
seasonal ponds (Storer 1925; Feaver 1971; Zeiner et al. 1988; Trenham 
et al. 2000). The species has been found in 10 of the 17 California 
vernal pool regions defined by Keeler-Wolf et al. (1998). Vernal pools 
are an important part of the California tiger salamander breeding 
habitat in the Central Valley and South San Joaquin regions (CNDDB 
2003). Currently, the salamander primarily uses stock ponds in the Bay 
Area and Coast Range regions, largely due to the destruction of vernal 
pool habitat in these regions. A number of records in the Santa Rosa 
area document CTS being found in ditches. The extent of the 
contribution of these intermittent water bodies has not been 
specifically studied, however there is no evidence that these areas are 
used for breeding (Cook in. litt. 2003).
    Vernal pools typically form in topographic depressions underlain by 
an impervious layer (such as claypan, hardpan, or volcanic strata) that 
prevents downward percolation of water. Vernal pool hydrology is 
characterized by inundation of water during the late fall, winter, and 
spring, followed by complete desiccation during the summer dry season 
(Holland and Jain 1998). Vernal pools support diverse flora and fauna 
that are adapted to the dramatic seasonal changes in moisture and 
benefit from the lack of predation by non-native fish. Twenty-nine 
other federally or State listed species within the California tiger 
salamander's range are vernal pool specialists, including 24 plants, 
four crustaceans, and one insect (Keeler-Wolf et al. 1998). California 
tiger salamanders, like the listed vernal pool crustaceans, inhabit 
these seasonally inundated habitats. However, listed vernal pool 
crustaceans require a relatively short period of inundation to complete 
their life cycle (59 FR 48136; September 19, 1994); therefore, pools 
that support some crustaceans may not hold water long enough to allow 
successful metamorphosis of California tiger salamander larvae. In a 
study of amphibians located in eastern Merced County, California tiger 
salamander larvae were only observed in the largest vernal pools (Laabs 
et al. 2001). Unlike vernal pool crustaceans, California tiger 
salamanders can breed and metamorphose in perennial ponds.
    In addition to vernal pools and seasonal ponds, California tiger 
salamanders also use small artificial water bodies such as stockponds 
for breeding (Stebbins 1985; Zeiner et al. 1988; Shaffer et al. 1993; 
Alvarez in litt. 2003; Bobzien in litt. 2003; CNDDB 2003). Stock ponds 
for cattle, sheep, horses, and other livestock have been, and continue 
to be, built to supply local water needs, especially in rural grazing 
lands in coastal and Sierra foothill areas where inexpensive public 
water or ground water is not available (Bennett

[[Page 47216]]

1970). Stock ponds constructed as water sources for livestock are 
important habitats for the California tiger salamander throughout its 
range (H. Shaffer, pers. comm. 2003; P. Trenham, University of 
California, Davis, pers. comm. 2002). In some areas, stock ponds have 
largely replaced vernal pools as breeding pools (due to the loss of 
vernal pools) and provide important habitat for the species. For 
instance, of the 155 California tiger salamander locality records in 
the East Bay area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties) where the wetland 
type was identified, 85 percent (131 sites) were located in stock ponds 
(CNDDB 2003).
    Management of stock ponds determines their suitability as breeding 
habitat for California tiger salamanders (Shaffer in litt. 2003). As is 
true of natural vernal pools, the inundation period of stock ponds can 
be so short that larvae cannot metamorphose (e.g., when early drawdown 
of irrigation ponds occurs). However, in contrast to natural vernal 
pools, stock ponds may contain water throughout the year, or for 
sufficiently long periods, that predatory fish and bullfrogs (R. 
catesbeiana) can colonize the pond and establish self-sustaining 
breeding populations (see Factor C below; Shaffer et al. 1993; Seymour 
and Westphal 1994) these populations likely affect California tiger 
salamanders. The presence of bull frogs and fish are negatively 
correlated with salamander populations and so it is possible that 
extirpation of the salamander population is likely if fish and other 
predators are introduced (Shaffer et al. 1993; Seymour and Westphal 
1994). Inappropriate management of ponds can threaten California tiger 
salamander habitat. Natural soil erosion, sometimes increased by pond 
breaching, berm failure, stock animal impacts, and inadequate 
management practices can result in increased sedimentation of the pond 
(Hamilton and Jepson 1940, Prunuske 1987), thereby reducing their 
quality as salamander habitat. Alternatively, ponds with insufficient 
turbidity provide inadequate cover for larvae. Stock ponds may be 
geographically isolated from other seasonal wetlands occupied by 
California tiger salamanders, and newly created ponds may be located 
beyond the maximum dispersal distances of juvenile or adult 
salamanders. However, because the species can live for more than a 
decade (Trenham et al. 2000), and during this time individuals can 
migrate between aquatic and upland habitats, colonization of newly 
created and geographically isolated ponds may be possible, provided the 
intervening habitat can be successfully traversed by dispersing 
salamanders (Sweet in litt. 2003).
    Once fall or winter rains begin, adults emerge from the upland 
sites on rainy nights to feed and to migrate to the breeding ponds 
(Stebbins 1985, 1989; Shaffer et al. 1993). Males migrate to the 
breeding ponds before females (Twitty 1941; Shaffer et al. 1993; Loredo 
and Van Vuren 1996; Trenham 1998b). Males usually remain in the ponds 
for an average of about six to eight weeks, while females stay for 
approximately one to two weeks. In dry years, both sexes may stay for 
shorter periods (Loredo and Van Vuren 1996; Trenham 1998b). Most marked 
salamanders have been recaptured at the pond where they were initially 
captured; in one study, approximately 80 percent were recaptured at the 
same pond over the course of three breeding seasons (Trenham 1998b). 
The rate of natural movement of salamanders among breeding sites 
depends on the distance between the ponds or complexes of ponds and on 
the quality of intervening habitat (e.g., salamanders may move more 
quickly through sparsely covered and open grassland than they can 
through densely vegetated lands) (Trenham 1998a).
    Upland habitat and terrestrial ecology. California tiger 
salamanders spend the majority of their lives in upland habitats, and 
cannot persist without them (Trenham and Shaffer in review). The upland 
component of California tiger salamander habitat typically consists of 
grassland savannah (Shaffer et al. 1993; Alvarez in litt. 2003; Bobzien 
in litt. 2003; Service 2004). However, in Santa Barbara and eastern 
Contra Costa Counties, some California tiger salamander breeding ponds 
occur in grasslands with scattered oak trees, and scrub or chaparral 
habitats (Shaffer et al. 1993; Alvarez in litt. 2003; 65 FR 57242). 
Salamanders most commonly utilize burrows in open grassland or under 
isolated oaks, and less commonly in oak woodlands (Shaffer et al. 
1993).
    Juvenile and adult California tiger salamanders spend the dry 
summer and fall months of the year in the burrows of small mammals, 
such as California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) and Botta's 
pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) (Storer 1925; Loredo and Van Vuren 
1996; Petranka 1998; Trenham 1998a). Although the upland burrows 
inhabited by California tiger salamanders have often been referred to 
as ``aestivation'' sites, which implies a state of inactivity, evidence 
suggests that California tiger salamanders may remain active in their 
underground dwellings (Sweet in litt. 2003). Movement within and among 
burrow systems continues for at least several months after the 
salamander leaves the breeding site (Trenham 2001; Trenham and Shaffer 
2004).
    California tiger salamanders cannot dig their own burrows, and as a 
result their presence is associated with burrowing mammals such as 
ground squirrels (Seymour and Westphal 1994). The creation of burrow 
habitat by ground squirrels and utilized by California tiger 
salamanders suggests a commensal relationship between the two species 
(Loredo et al. 1996). Active ground-burrowing rodent populations 
probably are required to sustain California tiger salamanders because 
inactive burrow systems become progressively unsuitable over time. 
Loredo et al. (1996) found that California ground squirrel burrow 
systems collapsed within 18 months following abandonment by, or loss 
of, the mammals. California tiger salamanders use both occupied and 
unoccupied burrows.
    Adult California tiger salamanders have been observed up to 2,092 m 
(1.3 mi) from breeding ponds (S. Sweet, University of California, Santa 
Barbara, in litt. 1998), which may be vernal pools, stock ponds, or 
other seasonal or perennial water bodies. A recent trapping effort in 
Contra Costa County captured California tiger salamanders 805 m (2,641 
ft) to 1,207 m (3,960 ft) from the nearest breeding aquatic habitat 
(Orloff in litt. 2003). Trenham et al. (2001) observed California tiger 
salamanders moving up to 670 m (2,200 ft) between breeding ponds in 
Monterey County. Similarly, in an experimental study, Shaffer and 
Trenham (in review) found that 95 percent of California tiger 
salamanders resided within 640 m (2,100 ft) of their breeding pond at 
Jepson Prairie in Solano County. Based on the Monterey County study, 
and with the caution that there is limited understanding as regards 
essential terrestrial habitats and buffer requirements, Trenham et al. 
(2001) recommended that plans to maintain local populations of 
California tiger salamanders should include pond(s) surrounded by at 
least 173-m (567-ft) wide buffers of terrestrial habitat occupied by 
burrowing mammals. The distance between the upland and breeding sites 
depends on local topography and vegetation, and the distribution of 
California ground squirrel or other rodent burrows (Stebbins 1989).
    Metamorphosed juveniles leave the breeding sites in the late spring 
or early summer. Before the breeding sites dry

[[Page 47217]]

completely, the animals settle in small mammal burrows, to which they 
return at the end of nightly movements (Zeiner et al. 1988; Shaffer et 
al. 1993; Loredo et al. 1996). Like the adults, juveniles may emerge 
from these retreats to feed during nights of high relative humidity 
(Storer 1925; Shaffer et al. 1993) before settling in their selected 
upland sites for the dry, hot summer months. Juveniles have been 
observed to migrate up to 1.6 km (1 mi) from breeding pools to upland 
areas (Austin and Shaffer 1992).
    While most California tiger salamanders rely on rodent burrows for 
shelter, some individuals may utilize soil crevices as temporary 
shelter during upland migrations (Lorendo et al. 1996). Mortality of 
juveniles during their first summer exceeds 50 percent (Trenham 1998b). 
Emergence from upland habitat in hot, dry weather occasionally results 
in mass mortality of juveniles (Holland et al. 1990). Juveniles do not 
typically return to the breeding pools until they reach sexual maturity 
at two years of age at a minimum (Trenham 1998b; Hunt 1998), and 
survival to adulthood may be low. Trenham (1998b) estimated survival 
from metamorphosis to maturity at a site in Monterey County to be less 
than 5 percent (well below an estimated replacement level of 18 
percent). Adult survivorship varies greatly between years, but is a 
crucial determinant of whether a locality is a source or sink (i.e., 
whether net productivity exceeds, or fails to reach, the level 
necessary to maintain the breeding site).
    Metapopulation biology may help us predict the effects of future 
habitat loss and fragmentation for taxa that have a metapopulation 
structure (Marsh and Trenham 2001 and references cited therein). A 
metapopulation is a set of local subpopulations within an area, where 
subpopulations become extinct and are recolonized in the future by 
migrants from other subpopulations (Hanski and Gilpin 1991; Hanski 
1994; McCullough 1996). Regional persistence in such systems depends on 
the migration of individuals between habitat patches (Trenham 1998b). 
California tiger salamanders appear to conform to a broadly defined 
metapopulation structure. In the California tiger salamander system, 
the spatial arrangement of ponds and the migratory behavior of the 
animals probably have a substantial influence on pond occupancy and 
local population persistence (Trenham 1998b). If metapopulation theory 
is predictive of California tiger salamander behavior, then the direct 
loss of breeding sites with high production of California tiger 
salamanders or their isolation from other sites due to habitat 
fragmentation could result in the loss of other breeding sites that 
rely on inter-pond dispersal or the metapopulation structure (Trenham 
1998b; Marsh and Trenham 2001).
    Number of individuals. The total number of individual California 
tiger salamanders rangewide is not known. Estimating the total number 
of California tiger salamanders is difficult due to limited data and 
understanding concerning the life history of the species. Data on 
numbers of individual California tiger salamanders are lacking for 
several reasons, first because the species is difficult to detect, 
second, because the animals spend much of their lives underground 
(Storer 1925, Feaver 1971, Shaffer et al. 1993, van Hattem 2004), and 
third, because only a portion of the total number of California tiger 
salamanders migrate to pools to breed each year (Trenham et al. 2000). 
The activity of California tiger salamanders during the majority of the 
year in these burrows is not well documented and has only recently been 
studied (van Hattem 2004). In the absence of estimates of the total 
number of California tiger salamanders, we primarily rely on measures 
of habitat availability as well as current and future habitat status as 
an indication of the status of the species.

Previous Federal Action

    On September 18, 1985, we published the Vertebrate Notice of Review 
(NOR) (50 FR 37958), which included the California tiger salamander as 
a category 2 candidate species for possible future listing as 
threatened or endangered. Category 2 candidates were those taxa for 
which information contained in our files indicated that listing may be 
appropriate but for which additional data were needed to support a 
listing proposal. The January 6, 1989, and November 21, 1991, candidate 
NORs (54 FR 554 and 56 FR 58804, respectively) also included the 
California tiger salamander as a category 2 candidate, soliciting 
information on the status of the species.
    On February 21, 1992, we received a petition from Dr. H. Bradley 
Shaffer of the University of California at Davis, to list the 
California tiger salamander as an endangered species. We published a 
90-day petition finding on November 19, 1992 (57 FR 54545), concluding 
that the petition presented substantial information indicating that 
listing may be warranted. On April 18, 1994, we published a 12-month 
petition finding (59 FR 18353) that the listing of the California tiger 
salamander was warranted but precluded by higher priority listing 
actions. We elevated the species to category 1 status at that time, 
which was reflected in the November 15, 1994, Animal NOR (59 FR 58982). 
Category 1 candidates were those taxa for which we had on file 
sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threats to 
support preparation of listing proposals. In a memorandum dated 
November 3, 1994, from the acting Assistant Regional Director of the 
Pacific Region to the Field Supervisor of the Sacramento Field Office, 
the recycled 12-month finding on the petition and a proposed rule to 
list the species under the Act were given a due date of December 15, 
1995. However, on April 10, 1995, Public Law 104-6 imposed a moratorium 
on listings and critical habitat designations and rescinded $1.5 
million funding from our listing program. The moratorium was lifted and 
listing funding was restored through passage of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act on April 26, 1996. In the NOR published February 28, 
1996 (61 FR 7596), we discontinued the use of different categories of 
candidates, and defined ``candidate species'' as those meeting the 
definition of former category 1. We maintained California tiger 
salamander as a candidate species in that NOR, as well as in subsequent 
NORs published on September 19, 1997 (62 FR 49398), October 25, 1999 
(64 FR 57534) and October 30, 2001 (66 FR 54808).
    On January 19, 2000, the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California 
tiger salamander was listed as an endangered species under an emergency 
basis (65 FR 3096) and proposed for listing as endangered (65 FR 3110). 
On September 21, 2000, we listed the Santa Barbara County DPS of the 
California tiger salamander as endangered (65 FR 57242). On January 22, 
2004, we proposed critical habitat for the Santa Barbara County DPS (69 
FR 3064).
    On February 27, 2002, the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) 
filed a complaint in the Northern District of California for our 
failure to list the Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment of the 
California tiger salamander as endangered (Center for Biological 
Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (No. C-02-055-WHA (N.D. 
Cal.)). On June 6, 2002, the Court approved a settlement agreement 
requiring us to (1) make 90-day and 12-month petition findings on the 
Sonoma County DPS of California tiger salamander, or to publish an 
emergency and proposed rules if the DPS faced an emergency under the 
meaning of the Act's section 4(b)(7), by July 15, 2002 and (2) submit a 
proposal to list the California tiger salamander throughout its 
remaining range in California (except

[[Page 47218]]

for the Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County Distinct Population 
Segments) for publication in the Federal Register on or before May 15, 
2003, and to submit a final rule for publication in the Federal 
Register on or before May 15, 2004. On July 22, 2002, we listed the 
Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander as an endangered 
species on an emergency basis and proposed to list the DPS as 
endangered permanently (67 FR 47726; 67 FR 47758). On March 19, 2003, 
we listed the Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander as 
endangered (68 FR 13498) with notice that the Service would consider 
downlisting or listing the entire species rangewide. On May 23, 2003, 
we proposed (1) to list the Central California DPS of the California 
tiger salamander as threatened, (2) to downlist the Santa Barbara and 
Sonoma DPSs from endangered to threatened, and (3) a 4(d) rule for the 
California tiger salamander where listed as threatened (68 FR 28648). 
We also asked for public comment on a number of issues, including 
whether the three populations should be consolidated into a single 
rangewide listing. This final rule completes our obligations under the 
settlement agreement.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the May 23, 2003, proposed rule, we proposed to list the Central 
California DPS of the California tiger salamander as threatened, and we 
proposed reclassification of the Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County 
populations from endangered to threatened (68 FR 28648). In the same 
notice we also proposed that the special rule under section 4(d) of the 
Act for the Central California DPS be extended to the Santa Barbara and 
Sonoma County DPS.
    In the proposed rule and associated notifications, we announced six 
public hearings and requested that all interested parties submit 
factual reports or information that might contribute to the development 
of this final rule. The comment period for the proposed rule was 
initially open from May 23 through July 22, 2003. On July 3, 2003, we 
extended the comment period for an additional 60 days until September 
22, 2003 (68 FR 39892) to accommodate additional public hearings. On 
September 30, 2003, we reopened the comment period for 30 days until 
October 31, 2003 (68 FR 56251).
    We held a total of 10 public hearings on our May 23, 2003, proposed 
rule: two on June 17, 2003, in Livermore, California; two on June 18, 
2003, in Monterey, California; two on June 19, 2003, in Merced, 
California; two on July 29, 2003, in Santa Rosa, California; and two on 
July 31, 2003, in Santa Maria, California. We also organized six 
informal workshops to inform the public and answer questions regarding 
the California tiger salamander and the proposed rule: two on June 10, 
2003, in Livermore, California; two on June 11, 2003, in Merced, 
California; and two on June 12, 2003, in Monterey, California. On June 
24, 2003, per the request of the Alameda County Agricultural 
Commission, we attended a county meeting, gave a presentation to the 
public on the proposed rule, and answered questions regarding the 
species and the proposal. In addition to the public hearings and public 
workshops we organized, we attended community forums in Merced, 
California, on September 12, 2003, and in Modesto, California, on 
October 24, 2003, to discuss the proposed rule and answer questions. At 
the forums, we provided information on where to obtain copies of the 
proposed rule and maps of the areas considered potential habitat for 
the species.
    We produced news releases on the proposed listing and the public 
hearings and workshops and distributed them to the news media on May 
16, 2003, July 3, 2003, and September 30, 2003. Stories based on the 
news releases and the meetings were produced by the Associated Press 
(May 16 and October 1); the Santa Rosa Press Democrat (May 18, July 
30); the San Francisco Chronicle (May 17); the Santa Barbara News Press 
(May 17); the Modesto Bee (June 12); the Merced Sun-Star (June 12 and 
June 20), and the Stockton Record (June 18).
    Written public comments were accepted at all the public hearings, 
workshops, and the Merced and Modesto meetings and entered into the 
supporting record for the rulemaking. Oral comments given at the public 
hearings were also accepted into the supporting record. In making our 
decision on the proposed rules, written comments were given the same 
weight as oral comments presented at hearings.
    We contacted all appropriate State and Federal agencies, county 
governments, elected officials, and other interested parties and 
invited them to comment. This was accomplished through telephone calls, 
electronic mail correspondence, letters, and news releases faxed and/or 
mailed to appropriate elected officials, media outlets, local 
jurisdictions, interest groups, and other interested individuals. We 
also posted the proposed rule and associated material on both our 
Sacramento and Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office internet sites 
following their release on May 16, 2003, July 3, 2003, and September 
30, 2003, respectively. We published legal notices on the public 
hearings and workshops in the Contra Costa Times and Tri-Valley Herald 
on June 1, 2003; the Merced Sun-Star, Monterey Herald, Santa Barbara 
News-Press, San Luis Obispo Telegram Tribune, and Salinas Californian 
on June 2, 2003; the Pinnacle Newspaper on June 5, 2003; and in the 
Santa Rosa Press Democrat on July 19, 2003.
    We received a total of 1,955 comment letters and electronic mail 
correspondences (e-mails) during the three comment periods. Comments 
were received from Federal, State, and local agencies, Federal and 
State lawmakers, and private organizations and individuals. We reviewed 
all comments received for substantive issues and comments, and new 
information regarding the Central California tiger salamander, the 
proposed special rule to exempt routine ranching activities, the 
proposed downlisting of Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County DPSs, 
and on the appropriateness of a single rangewide designation or 
combinations of designations. Similar comments were grouped into 
several general issue categories relating specifically to the proposed 
rule and are identified below. Some of the comments expressed support 
for a listing of the Central California tiger salamander. Others 
opposed a listing. Substantive information supporting each position was 
incorporated into this final rule. All comments on the proposed 
reclassification of the Santa Barbara County and Sonoma County DPSs are 
addressed in this final determination.

Peer Review

    We asked 28 scientists, researchers, and biologists who have 
knowledge of California tiger salamanders, or amphibians generally, to 
provide peer review of the proposed rule. Eleven of the 28 individuals 
who were asked to act as peer reviewers submitted comments on the 
proposed rulemaking. Based on our analysis, all 11 peer reviewers 
supported the listing of the Central California tiger salamander as 
threatened. Two of the peer reviewers stated that the proposed 
exemption for routine ranching activities as written in the proposed 
rule lacked sufficient biological rationale or did not provide a 
conservation benefit to the California tiger salamander and stated that 
it is inappropriate to consider applying it to the Sonoma and Santa 
Barbara DPSs, while six were generally in support of

[[Page 47219]]

the proposed 4(d) rule. Some peer reviewers suggested ways to improve 
the conservation aspects of this proposed exemption. Additionally, peer 
reviewers provided additional documentation of threats to the species 
and potential conservation measures. This information has been 
incorporated into the final rule.
    Because we relied on unpublished genetics studies for this rule, we 
also requested peer review from nine universities on the mitochondrial 
DNA (mtDNA) study of California tiger salamander conducted by Dr. H.B. 
Shaffer and Dr. P.C. Trenham of the University of California at Davis 
(report cited as Shaffer and Trenham 2002). Three of the nine agreed to 
review the report. The peer reviewers had a few technical comments and 
suggestions; however, all three concluded that the methods and analyses 
used in this genetic research were appropriate and felt that the 
conclusions drawn by Dr. Shaffer and Dr. Trenham were appropriate and 
defensible. One of the peer reviewers also concluded that the data 
demonstrated that California tiger salamander hybridization with non-
native tiger salamanders posed a considerable threat to the species. 
The study by Shaffer and Trenham has recently been accepted for 
publication (Shaffer et al. in press).

Summary of Comments and Responses for the Proposed Downlisting of the 
Santa Barbara and Sonoma County Distinct Population Segments

    Eight of the 11 peer reviewers who submitted comments on the 
proposed rule specifically addressed the proposed reclassification of 
the Santa Barbara and Sonoma County DPSs. Several stated that the 
proposed reclassification was not consistent with available information 
on the status and threats to the Santa Barbara and Sonoma County DPSs. 
One peer reviewer stated that, although it appeared counter-intuitive 
to change the listing designation without data showing some improvement 
in status, the reclassification may be warranted if the change would 
allow routine ranching activities.

State Agencies

    We received comments from the California Department of Food and 
Agriculture (CDFA). The issues raised by CDFA are addressed below.
    CDFA Comment 1: The proposed rule to list the Central California 
tiger salamander should include a full discussion of the potential 
economic impacts associated with the proposed rule. The proposed 
listing will likely create a regulatory burden for landowners who 
convert rangeland to other forms of agriculture. Economic burdens to 
landowners need to be evaluated and mitigated.
    Our Response: Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we must base a 
listing decision solely on the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding the likelihood that the species meets the 
definitions of threatened or endangered as defined in the Act.
    CDFA Comment 2: The relative importance of stressors to the Central 
California tiger salamander should be described.
    Our Response: As described in more detail below, the California 
tiger salamander is at risk due to: (1) Habitat loss, degradation, and 
modification from land conversion and alteration; and secondarily to: 
(2) predation from non-native species; (3) inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms; and (4) hybridization with non-native tiger 
salamanders. Thus, the California tiger salamander is appropriately 
considered to be threatened by conditions identified under four of the 
five factors and meets the definitions of threatened, regardless of 
having a relatively extensive distribution. The threat of hybridization 
with non-native tiger salamanders is a particularly severe threat in 
the Central Coast Range and Bay Area regions and, to a lesser extent, 
the Central Valley region. We consider the other threats to be 
secondary, but still material to the status of the DPS (see Factor E 
below).
    CDFA Comment 3: References in the proposed rule used to describe 
adverse impacts to the salamander need to be documented. CDFA indicated 
that it has recently completed a risk assessment of the use of 
rodenticides on threatened and endangered species.
    Our Response: As stated in the proposed rule, the complete file for 
the rule is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal 
business hours at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. In addition, 
the proposed rule stated that all comments received during the comment 
period were available for public review. The complete file for this 
rule is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal 
business hours at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
    The Service received a copy of the risk assessment entitled, 
``Ecological Risk Assessment for Grain-Based Field-Use Anticoagulant 
Rodenticides Registered by the California Department of Food and 
Agriculture for Special Local Needs'' (Silberhorn et al. 2003). The 
study was an ecological risk assessment that focused on four specific 
anticoagulant rodenticides and their potential for effects to non-
target birds and mammals through secondary poisoning (e.g., poisoning 
through consumption of prey killed by the toxin). The primary target 
species for these rodenticides is the California ground squirrel, with 
mortality of exposed squirrels caused by internal hemorrhaging. 
Secondary poisoning of non-target species, such as canids or raptors, 
may result from preying on moribund animals or scavenging on carcasses. 
The ecological risk assessment did not examine potential effects to 
amphibians, and California tiger salamanders do not consume dead or 
dying rodents. The Service has determined that the results of this 
ecological risk assessment provide little information on the potential 
risk to California tiger salamanders as the result of direct or 
indirect effects of rodenticide use.

Summary of Public Comments and Responses

    We address other substantive comments and accompanying information 
in the following summary. Many of the public comments on the proposed 
downlisting of the Santa Barbara and Sonoma DPSs were similar to, and 
are included in, the summary of public comments and responses for the 
Central DPS. In addition to those, commenters raised the issues 
described below regarding the proposed reclassification of the Santa 
Barbara and Sonoma County DPSs. All substantive information provided by 
commenters has been evaluated in the process of making this final 
determination and has been incorporated into the final rule as 
appropriate.

Issue 1--Distribution, Habitat, Threats, and Use of Science

    Comment 1: Numerous commenters stated that the Central California 
tiger salamander should not be listed as threatened or endangered 
because the Central California tiger salamander inhabits a large 
geographical area or is found in many counties. A few commenters, 
including local governments, stated that the proposed rule did not 
present scientific evidence that the Central California tiger 
salamander was threatened, or likely to become endangered in the 
foreseeable future, as defined by the Act. One commenter questioned how 
the Central California tiger salamander could be listed if a large 
portion of its habitat could be deemed as having beneficial land use 
practices (ranching activities)

[[Page 47220]]

and these activities were proposed for exemption under the special 4(d) 
rule.
    Our Response: A wide distribution or one that includes a number of 
counties does not, in and of itself, preclude the need to list a 
species, subspecies, or DPS under the Act. When making a listing 
determination, we carefully consider the best available scientific and 
commercial information regarding the historic and current ranges of the 
taxon under consideration, as well as the abundance of the species, and 
the pattern, imminence, and magnitude of threats relative to the 
species' distribution. After completing such an analysis for the 
Central California tiger salamander, we believe that the best available 
evidence supports a threatened listing. All 11 of the peer reviewers 
who responded agreed with our assessment.
    We believe that one of the primary threats to the Central 
California tiger salamander is habitat destruction, degradation, and 
fragmentation. Much of this threat is related to losses of habitat to 
urban development and conversion to intensive agriculture. We believe 
routine ranching, as identified in the 4(d) rule, is neutral or 
beneficial for salamanders. Listing the DPS as threatened, while 
exempting these ranching practices, concurrently increases protection 
of rangelands from conversion to land uses which eliminate Central 
California tiger salamander habitat and allows ranchers to continue 
conducting business in a way that either does not harm or benefits the 
salamander. Because one of our primary concerns is elimination of 
Central California tiger salamander habitat, we believe it is 
appropriate to exempt routine ranching even though it is practiced 
throughout a large portion of the range of the salamander. As described 
in Factor C and E below, the Central California tiger salamander is 
threatened on rangeland by other factors unrelated to habitat loss.
    Comment 2: Many commenters including local governments stated that 
we did not use adequate science in making our decision to propose the 
Central California tiger salamander as a threatened species. A few 
commenters stated that the California tiger salamander records from the 
CNDDB were insufficient because this database lacked observations of 
the species on private lands.
    Our Response: We used the best scientific and commercial 
information available during the status review process and preparation 
of the proposed rule to make our listing determination. We used museum 
records; CNDDB information; GIS coverages documenting the land use 
changes; unpublished reports by biologists; and peer-reviewed articles 
from scientific journals in making that determination. Additionally, 
the proposed rule was peer-reviewed by 11 scientists, researchers, and 
biologists with amphibian expertise throughout the United States.
    Regarding the lack of occurrence data from private lands, the 
Service is aware that systematic surveys have not been conducted 
throughout the range of the species. The CNDDB is the clearinghouse for 
location and status data collected by State and Federal agencies, 
consultants, scientists, and other knowledgeable biologists on private, 
State, and Federal lands. We believe that the data in CNDDB, 
supplemented by information available in other sources and provided by 
commenters, represents the best available scientific and commercial 
information on the distribution of the Central California tiger 
salamander.
    Comment 3: Numerous commenters expressed concern that there was not 
scientific justification for stating that the California tiger 
salamander can migrate 1 to 2 miles from aquatic breeding habitat into 
upland habitat.
    Our Response: Adult California tiger salamanders have been observed 
up to 2.1 km (1.3 mi) from breeding ponds (S. Sweet, University of 
California, Santa Barbara, in litt. 1998), which may be vernal pools, 
stock ponds, or other seasonal water bodies. During the comment period, 
the Service received information about a trapping study of California 
tiger salamanders in West Pittsburg, California, where, during the 
first three years of the study, 200 to 446 California tiger salamanders 
were trapped each year 0.8 km to 1.2 km (0.5 to 0.75 miles) away from 
potential breeding habitat (S. Orloff, in litt. 2003). Additionally, 
researchers have marked California tiger salamanders in study ponds and 
have also captured them using pit fall traps in upland migration 
studies and have determined that the species can migrate up to 670 m 
(2,200 ft) from breeding ponds to upland habitat (Trenham et al. 2002; 
Trenham and Shaffer in review).
    Comment 4: Numerous commenters stated that the Central California 
tiger salamander should not be listed as threatened or endangered 
because the proposed rule does not have population information that 
would indicate that the species is declining. Commenters also believed 
that it was inappropriate for the Service to rely on habitat loss for 
determining the species' decline. One commenter, after conducting a 
population estimate of the Central California tiger salamander, 
concluded that there were 840,000 individuals.
    Our Response: Based on a review of the scientific and commercial 
data, the total number of individual California tiger salamanders is 
not known. The difficulty of estimating the total number of California 
tiger salamanders has been documented by a number of biologists 
(Jennings and Hayes 1994; Shaffer et al. 1993). However, estimates have 
been made for specific locations in Monterey and Alameda counties 
(Trenham et al. 2000; Kolar in litt. 2003). The fact that this species 
spends much of its life underground, only a portion of the total number 
of animals migrate to pools to breed each year, animals do not always 
breed in their natal pool or pond, and the California tiger 
salamander's wide distribution make estimating the total number of 
California tiger salamanders difficult.
    To determine the Central California tiger salamander's listing 
status, we estimated the current distribution and habitat of the 
species based on known occurrences, and the projected status of the 
species in the foreseeable future after review of the threats to the 
DPS from habitat-related and other factors (see Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species section below). For habitat-related factors, 
because of our understanding of the habitat that California tiger 
salamanders use, and the species' distribution based on known 
occurrences, we used threats to habitat associated with known 
occurrences of the Central California tiger salamander as an indication 
of the status of Central California tiger salamander, in the absence of 
estimates of the total number of individuals (see Factor A below; 
Service 2004). The relationship between habitat loss and population 
decline is further discussed in the Background section above. We also 
evaluated other threats such as predation from exotic species and the 
potential threat from disease (see Factor C below), inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms (see Factor D below), and hybridization 
with non-native tiger salamanders (see Factor E below; Service 2004).
    The population estimate of 840,000 individuals provided by the 
commenter is based on an estimate of 1,140 salamanders per pond, which 
is then extrapolated for the number of breeding sites presented by the 
commenter. This estimate is largely based on a study conducted by the 
Loredo and Van Vuren study (1996), which investigated breeding 
migrations and reproductive traits of California tiger salamanders at a 
breeding pond in Contra Costa, California. In this study, researchers

[[Page 47221]]

marked juveniles during three seasons and recaptured mature adults 
during two of the seasons. The commenter used the mark recapture 
information presented in the Loredo and Van Vuren study (1996), in 
addition to survival data for California tiger salamander (Trenham et 
al. 2000), to conduct the population estimate.
    We have determined that the estimate provided by the commenter is 
speculative and not properly derived because the breeding pond being 
investigated by Loredo and Van Vuren (1996) may not have been a closed 
system. At least four other breeding sites were observed in the area 
(Loredo and Van Vuren 1996). We believe this may have allowed 
salamanders to migrate into and out of the population being 
investigated, at unknown rates. Some salamanders also may have lost 
their marks due to regeneration of clipped toes (Loredo and Van Vuren 
1996), and California tiger salamanders that were marked in the first 
season may not have had an equal opportunity to be recaptured during 
the following two seasons because salamanders may not mature until four 
or five years of age (Trenham et al. 2000); thus, individuals would not 
have migrated to the breeding pond during the study period to allow for 
possible recapture. We have also concluded that the rangewide estimate 
for the Central California tiger salamander provided by the commenter 
is speculative because it extrapolates a population estimate derived 
from a single site to all sites throughout the range of a species that 
displays different environmental conditions and population sizes 
associated with such conditions.
    Comment 5: Some commenters stated that the proposed rule did not 
have information on the range or distribution of the California tiger 
salamander. Another commenter stated that the current range of the 
Central California tiger salamander was similar to the species' 
historic range.
    Our Response: We used specific locations of the California tiger 
salamander identified in the California Department of Fish and Game's 
CNDDB and additional information provided by outside parties in our 
analysis of the current distribution of the salamander. Maps 
illustrating the current known distribution of the animal were 
available to the public during the comment period upon request from the 
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. They were also available to the 
public at six workshops and ten public hearings during the comment 
period.
    We agree that the California tiger salamander still occurs 
throughout much of its historic range (Trenham et al. 2000), although 
we estimate approximately 75 percent of the species' historic natural 
habitat has been lost within this range (Shaffer et al. 1993; see 
Factor A below). However, we do not believe that the size of the range 
of the California tiger salamander is the only statistic relevant to an 
evaluation of listing status. Although the current range of the 
California tiger salamander approximates its historic range in size, we 
believe the quality, connectivity, and distribution of the habitat 
within the range has been substantially altered and degraded.
    Comment 6: Several commenters stated that the Service did not 
conduct population surveys to document in what counties the Central 
California tiger salamander is located. One commenter stated that the 
Service did not use best available information on range, abundance, and 
number of extant populations. Another commenter provided information on 
additional occurrences of Central California tiger salamander breeding 
populations and stated that there were more occurrences presently than 
in the past and that there are 32 percent more occurrences than the 
Service used in the proposed rule.
    Our Response: The Service has determined that the Central 
California tiger salamander is located within 22 counties, which is 
based upon CNDDB and other information from biologists, and reports on 
the species that were available to the Service (see previous response 
to comment). The CNDDB data base contains information on observations 
of California tiger salamanders that have been submitted by biologists, 
researchers, and scientists who have documented the animal's presence 
at breeding sites and upland habitats. All location information 
submitted by commenters was used by the Service to make its 
determination for this final rule. When commenters asserted that 
additional occurrences exist without providing site-specific 
information, we attempted to obtain the information independently and/
or requested the information from the commenter. If we could not obtain 
the information or it was not provided to us, we did not evaluate it in 
our analysis. Therefore, we believe that we used the best available 
scientific and commercial information in developing this final rule.
    Comment 7: One commenter stated that the Central California tiger 
salamander was not threatened because the species occupies 1.7 million 
ha (4.1 million ac) of habitat with 737 known breeding populations 
within its 3.4-million-ha (8.3-million-ac) range.
    Our Response: The commenter conducted an independent analysis of 
the range and habitat of the Central California tiger salamander. 
Because their methodology differed from ours, their results (i.e., 
amount of salamander habitat and percentage of habitat likely to be 
lost) and interpretation also differed substantially from ours. The 
commenter assumed that all area within a habitat type used by the 
California tiger salamander was suitable salamander habitat regardless 
of the location and distribution of suitable aquatic breeding sites 
within those habitat types (i.e., the sum of grassland, woodland, and 
other habitat types within the range of the animal). We believe that 
their approach results in a substantial overestimate of the habitat 
actually used by extant salamanders.
    In contrast, we assessed the amount of salamander habitat based on 
known salamander location records. These records included all records 
in the CNDDB, as well as other records provided to us during the 
comment period. In contrast to the commenters' estimate, we acknowledge 
that our result is likely to be conservative. Nevertheless, because it 
is based upon known salamander locations, we believe that our approach 
yields a more appropriate estimate of the amount of habitat likely to 
be used by salamanders.
    Regarding the 737 California tiger salamander breeding populations 
presented by the commenter, we used all available information to us for 
our analysis for this final rule, which represents a total of 711 
California tiger salamander records and occurrences. Although the 
number of breeding populations is important for determining the 
California tiger salamander's distribution and habitat (as performed in 
our analysis), the number of breeding sites should not be solely used 
for assessing the status of the species because the number of breeding 
sites does not assess the range of the salamander or its distribution 
relative to historic loss and future threats. Additionally, records 
within the CNDDB database do not always constitute an observation of a 
salamander at a breeding site and can be an observation of the species 
in an upland area.
    Details of our approach can be obtained from the Sacramento Fish 
and Wildlife Office in the document cited here as Service (2004). In 
addition, the process is described briefly below in the Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species section. Based on our analysis, we 
estimate that there are approximately 378,882 ha (936,204 ac) of 
Central California tiger salamander

[[Page 47222]]

habitat, considerably less than the 1,659,214 ha (4.1 million ac) 
suggested by the commenter.
    Some portion of this area will be lost in the future to development 
(including low- and very-low-density residential) and conversion of 
rangeland to intensive agriculture. We estimate that 26 percent of the 
habitat associated with known salamander locations is threatened by 
conversion, fragmentation, and degradation from urbanization and low- 
and very-low-density residential development in the future. This 
estimated loss of habitat does not include the continued loss of 
habitat that has occurred as a result of conversion of habitat to 
intensive agriculture. In addition, California tiger salamanders are at 
risk from hybridization with non-native tiger salamanders, predation 
and other factors discussed in the Summary of Factors below.
    The primary threats include habitat destruction, degradation, and 
fragmentation due to urban development, and conversion to intensive 
agriculture. Other threats include hybridization with non-native 
salamanders and predation.
    Comment 8: Many commenters stated that the Central California tiger 
salamander did not require listing under the Act because it was already 
protected by existing regulatory mechanisms. Examples of current 
regulations cited include the application of the Porter-Cologne Water 
Quality Control Act, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by 
CDFG, Clean Water Act, and species listed under the Endangered Species 
Act, such as vernal pools species, vernal pool critical habitat, 
California red-legged frog, and the San Joaquin kit fox. One commenter 
stated that habitat conservation plans provide protection for the 
California tiger salamander. Many commenters, including local 
governments in Merced County, stated that the Central California tiger 
salamander was presently protected in Merced County by a 20,000-acre 
conservation easement program that acts as an existing regulatory 
mechanism. A few other commenters indicated that Merced County had 
existing regulatory mechanisms sufficient to protect the Central 
California tiger salamander through the Clean Water Act as well as to 
protect its habitat on waterfowl easements and on the San Luis National 
Wildlife Refuge. Commenters also mentioned existing protections that 
occur from local land use laws such as county plans and local 
ordinances. A few commenters also stated that the Williamson Act 
provides regulatory protection to the Central California tiger 
salamander.
    Our Response: Existing regulatory mechanisms may afford some 
regulatory protection to the Central California tiger salamander. 
However, the protection afforded by these regulations does not 
sufficiently protect the species to such an extent that listing is not 
warranted (see Factor D). In addition, the species is threatened by 
hybridization with non-native tiger salamander, predation, and other 
threats (see Factors C, D, and E below), that existing regulatory 
mechanisms do not alleviate. Regarding protected areas in Merced 
County, San Luis National Wildlife Refuge and other areas, we 
incorporated these areas into our analysis for estimating the amount of 
protected Central California tiger salamander habitat (see Factor A). 
While many of these areas may be protected from habitat destruction, 
California tiger salamanders on some of these otherwise protected lands 
are still threatened by hybridization, predation, and other non-habitat 
based threats (Factors C, D, and E).
    Comment 9: Several commenters stated that there are no diseases 
adversely affecting the Central California tiger salamander and that 
the discussion on disease as a threat in the proposed rule was 
speculative. Several commenters stated that the Service was on record 
that disease did not pose a threat to the California tiger salamander.
    Our Response: As stated in the proposed rule, the Service 
acknowledges that relatively little is known about the diseases of wild 
amphibians in general (Alford and Richards 1999) and California tiger 
salamander in particular (see Factor C below). Pathogen outbreaks have 
not been documented in the Central California tiger salamander, and 
while two of the peer reviewers expressed concerns that disease could 
pose a future threat to the California tiger salamander, we currently 
do not have specific information to consider it a threat.
    Comment 10: A few commenters expressed concern about the estimate 
of 4,451,549 ha (11.1 million ac) of habitat available for the Central 
California tiger salamander referenced in the proposed rule. These 
commenters stated that this estimate of potential habitat did not 
coincide with our estimates of habitat estimated for the four 
populations that are part of the Central California tiger salamander in 
the proposed rule. One commenter stated that the Service estimated the 
amount of habitat for the Central California tiger salamander without 
correlating potential habitat with distributional data for the species. 
One commenter stated that the Service did not ground truth California 
tiger salamander records that were determined to be extirpated as part 
of the proposed rule's GIS analysis (Service 2003).
    Our Response: The 4,451,549 ha (11.1 million ac) referred to in the 
proposed rule was a typographical error; the correct estimate was 
445,155 ha (1.1 million ac), which represents the sum of polygons 
representing presumed extant records surrounded by an area 2.4 km (1.5 
mi) wide to represent additional habitat that could be associated with 
Central California tiger salamander observations. Records were 
determined to be extant as recorded by the individual that made the 
observation, and refined through additional GIS analysis by the Service 
of records of California tiger salamander observation sites likely 
destroyed by existing urbanization and intensive agriculture, or where 
the California tiger salamander is threatened by hybridization with 
non-native tiger salamanders. Within the 445,155 ha (1.1 million ac), 
we estimated that there was approximately 283,280 ha (700,000 ac) of 
Central California tiger salamander habitat.
    Our estimate of distribution of existing Central California tiger 
salamander habitat was based upon the evaluation of California tiger 
salamander records and observations, together with other information on 
current land uses and habitat types associated with those locations. 
Using commenter's suggestions on our methodology and other new 
information received, we conducted a new analysis for this final rule. 
Our analysis methodology is described in greater detail below in the 
Summary of Factors.
    With respect to ground-truthing CNDDB records, the commenter is 
correct. While we visited as many sites as time allowed, our resources 
limited us to visiting only a fraction of the sites. Additional 
information from an increased number of site visits would have been 
useful, but in its absence, we have made this determination based on 
the best information available to us.
    Comment 11: Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
rule made contradictory statements regarding agricultural crops as 
habitat for the Central California tiger salamander while also 
discussing agriculture as a threat to the species. Another commenter 
stated that agriculture is not a threat because the total quantity of 
agricultural lands in the state is declining with the increasing human 
population.
    Our Response: While intensive agriculture is partially responsible 
for

[[Page 47223]]

removal of historic California tiger salamander habitat, we recognize 
the contribution that some agricultural practices like rangeland 
ranching make to California tiger salamander survival. Accordingly, we 
are promulgating a rule to allow ordinary and usual ranching practices 
to be exempt from the Act.
    Comment 12: Another commenter stated that development was not a 
threat to the Central California tiger salamander based on an analysis 
of impacts on Central California tiger salamander potential habitat 
projected by general plans. The commenter's independent analysis showed 
that 75 records and 127,192 ha (314,297 ac) of suitable habitat fall 
within areas designated by general plans for urban development. By this 
analysis, 88 percent of the localities (567 records) and approximately 
92 percent of the suitable habitat (1,537,808 ha (3,800,000 ac)) are 
not threatened by development. Additionally, the commenter's analysis 
included review of open space designations and other forms of 
conservation. This review identified 96 records (15 percent) and 
233,103 ha (576,008 ac) of habitat (14 percent) as protected from 
development. This commenter identified 25 sites that met the 
requirements of California tiger salamander preserves (Shaffer et al. 
1993).
    Our Response: We discussed above (see Response to Comment 6) a 
fundamental difference between our analysis and the commenter's 
analysis. We believe that the commenter's methodology resulted in a 
substantial overestimate of the amount of California tiger salamander 
habitat. Their subsequent estimates, such as the amount and percentage 
of habitat falling within general plan areas or within protected areas, 
rely on their estimation of salamander habitat. Because we believe the 
underlying habitat estimate to be inappropriate, we believe the 
subsequent estimates are questionable as well.
    Despite the difference between the commenter's estimate of 
salamander habitat and our estimate of habitat, these analyses are 
similar in that both utilized general plans and planned development for 
estimating habitat loss. Our analysis also included habitat loss, 
fragmentation, and degradation as a result of low-density and very-low-
density development, and we considered habitat conversion to intensive 
agriculture to also be a threat. The commenter did not use or consider 
these factors in their analysis (see Factor A below). Regarding the 
commenter's estimate of protected habitat, their percentage estimate 
(14 percent) is slightly less than ours (20 percent), despite that fact 
that we used different information to determine protected habitats.
    Our analysis indicated that approximately 28,526 ha (70,489 ac, or 
8 percent) of Central California tiger salamander habitat is threatened 
by development identified in general plans or by other planned 
development (Factor A). Our 8 percent estimate of Central California 
tiger salamander habitat threatened by development identified in 
general plans or by other planned development is similar to the 
commenter's estimate. Additionally, we determined 24,240 ha (59,897 ac, 
or 6 percent) of Central California tiger salamander habitat is 
threatened by low-density housing and 45,880 ha (113,371 ac, 12 
percent) by very-low-density housing (Factor A). The general plans that 
we used for this analysis represent the planning area for local 
governments. Planning for many areas does not extend beyond 2020, while 
California's growth rates are projected to continue to grow for at 
least the next 40 years (see Factor A below). Therefore, our estimate 
of habitat likely to be converted to land uses incompatible with 
Central California tiger salamander persistence is likely to be 
conservative. Our estimate is also conservative because it does not 
consider the loss of habitat due to conversion to intensive 
agriculture. Projecting the future loss of Central California tiger 
salamander habitat from conversion of rangeland to intensive 
agriculture is difficult because conversion to this land use is largely 
unregulated by cities and counties and is dependent upon the individual 
landowner and numerous factors that are difficult to predict, such as 
economic considerations, markets, and water availability.
    We also determined that 76,501 ha (189,032 ac, or 20 percent) are 
afforded some protection (see Factor A below). The percentage of 
habitat within protected areas varies across the Central California 
tiger salamander range from 2 to 27 percent (see Factor A below).
    We also evaluated the additional information received after the 
closing of the comment period regarding the issue of agricultural land 
conversion back from intensive use to areas no longer in production and 
determined that our analysis of existing California tiger salamander 
habitat was correct and that these land conversions are not resulting 
in an increase in habitat available to the California tiger salamander.
    Comment 13: We received information from several commenters on 
specific projects and their impacts to California tiger salamander.
    Our Response: These comments were not accompanied by information we 
could use to substantiate the status of each project (e.g., 
photographs, environmental documents). To the extent that we could 
independently verify the information submitted, we included it in our 
analysis.
    Comment 14: Another commenter stated that planned development areas 
should not be considered areas of potential impact due to avoidance, 
minimization, and mitigation. Additionally, this commenter stated that 
development will not go beyond general plans.
    Our Response: Planned development may often provide avoidance, 
minimization, and mitigation measures which are specifically for, or 
which may incidentally benefit, California tiger salamander. These 
measures result from conformance with local land use plans for 
providing open space, through working with the California Department of 
Fish and Game under the authority CEQA, or through working with the 
Service when other federally listed species are present. The avoidance, 
minimization, and mitigation measures of individual projects, 
nevertheless, tend to result in fragmented landscapes and a trend of 
cumulative regional habitat loss and fragmentation. Mitigation does not 
create new land, it simply balances land converted with land protected 
for natural values, so even with mitigation, a net loss of habitat 
results. We tried to reflect the overall effect of this balancing in 
our Factor A analysis when we looked at the amount of protected lands 
and lands being converted to urban uses. We did not project development 
beyond general plans except where we had specific information that 
indicated otherwise (see Factor A).
    Comment 15: A number of commenters stated that the Service should 
provide a map to landowners, counties, and other local governments with 
records of California tiger salamanders and their habitat. A few 
commenters stated that the Service should provide a map with records of 
California tiger salamanders and their habitat together with designated 
critical habitat for listed vernal pool species. A few commenters 
stated that the proposed rule did not present maps with the historic 
habitat for the Central California tiger salamander.
    Our Response: At each of our public workshops and hearings, we 
provided maps that identified California tiger salamander locations 
that were available for the public. We also brought larger maps that 
explained much of our five-factor analysis with respect to the

[[Page 47224]]

Central California tiger salamander. At each of these hearings and 
workshops, biologists were available to discuss the species with 
interested persons. These maps were also available from the SFWO upon 
request. Regarding the request for maps to provide the location of 
historic habitat for the Central California tiger salamander, we 
provided information on the species' historic range in the proposed 
rule and in this final rule.
    Comment 16: A few commenters stated that the Service was assuming 
that all vernal pools represented aquatic breeding habitat for the 
species.
    Our Response: The Service is not assuming that all vernal pools 
represent breeding habitat for the California tiger salamander. We 
consider vernal pools within the vicinity of known California tiger 
salamander records likely breeding habitat if they pond for a 
sufficient amount of time for larvae to metamorphose in some years. A 
given vernal pool may not hold water for a sufficient amount of time 
every year due to variability in the duration of pool inundation from 
one year to another.
    Comment 17: One commenter stated that there was no evidence that 
non-native fish and crayfish or wild pigs pose any threat to the 
Central California tiger salamander. This commenter also stated that 
bullfrogs are being eliminated by the control programs that are 
outlined in the California red-legged frog recovery plan, and, 
consequently, bullfrog populations will decrease in the future. Another 
commenter stated that the proposed rule did not quantify the threat of 
exotic species on the Central California tiger salamander.
    Our Response: While predation in and of itself may not threaten 
California tiger salamander, studies indicate, although not 
quantitatively, a strong negative correlation between the presence of 
the California tiger salamander and the presence of various species, 
including the bullfrog (Shaffer et al. 1993; Seymore and Westphal 1994; 
Laabs et al. 2001); mosquitofish (Loredo-Prendeville et al. 1994; Leyse 
and Lawler 2000; Leyse in litt. 2003); non-native fish species (Fisher 
and Shaffer 1996; Laabs et al. 2001); crayfish (Jennings and Hayes 
1994); and wild pigs (Waithman et al. 1999). These studies suggest that 
predation can negatively affect the persistence of California tiger 
salamander populations.
    The California tiger salamander may incidentally benefit in some 
ways from the Act's regulatory protection of the California red-legged 
frog. However, we believe that these protections will only partially 
protect the California tiger salamander because the two species only 
co-occur in certain areas and have differing habitat requirements in 
some phases of their life cycles.
    Comment 18: Several commenters stated that the Service was on 
record stating that pesticides were not a threat to the California 
tiger salamander (Service citing Davidson et al. 2002). Other 
commenters stated that pesticides are not a threat and their use in 
California is declining.
    Our Response: We acknowledge that most toxicological studies to 
date have not been conducted on California tiger salamander, but rather 
on other amphibian species, in particular Anuran species (frogs and 
toads). California tiger salamanders may be sensitive to pesticides and 
other chemicals, which may be found in both the aquatic and terrestrial 
habitats they use in different stages of their life cycle (Blaustein 
and Wake 1990) (see factor C below).
    We agree information indicates that pesticide use (measured by 
pounds of active ingredient) in California has declined between 1992 
and 2002 (California Department of Pesticide Regulation website). 
However, in 2002 eight of the top ten pesticide-using counties were in 
the range of the Central California tiger salamander. We believe that 
California tiger salamanders may be at risk from the use of pesticides 
because salamanders occur in the vicinity of agricultural lands where 
pesticides are often used (e.g., along the east side of the San Joaquin 
Valley). See also Factor E below.
    Comment 19: A few commenters stated that ground squirrel control 
was not a threat to the California tiger salamander because the control 
of ground squirrels in the state is declining. Another commenter stated 
that rodenticides do not pose a threat to the California tiger 
salamander any more than they do to burrowing owls.
    Our Response: California ground squirrel control may be done by 
trapping, shooting, fumigation of burrows, use of toxic (including 
anticoagulant) baits, and habitat modification, including deep-ripping 
of burrow areas (UC IPM internet website 2004). These control programs 
are still widely conducted by numerous local and state agencies. We 
received no data to suggest that active rodent control is declining. 
Two of the most commonly used rodenticides, chlorophacinone and 
diphacinone, are anticoagulants that cause animals to bleed to death 
(see Factor E below). These chemicals can be absorbed through the skin 
and are considered toxic to fish and wildlife (EPA 1985; EXOTONET 
1996). These two chemicals, along with strychnine, are used to control 
rodents (R. Thompson, in litt. 1998). There are no specific studies to 
determine the direct effects of these poisons on California tiger 
salamander. However, based on studies of similar amphibian species, any 
uses in close proximity to occupied Central California tiger salamander 
habitat could have various direct and indirect toxic effects. Gases, 
including aluminum phosphide, carbon monoxide, and methyl bromide, are 
used in rodent fumigation operations and are introduced into burrows by 
either using cartridges or by pumping. When such fumigants are used, 
animals inhabiting the fumigated burrow are killed (Salmon and Schmidt 
1984).
    Comment 20: A few commenters stated that mosquito control did not 
represent a significant threat to the Central California tiger 
salamander because other forms of control were being utilized to reduce 
the use of this fish as a control strategy.
    Our Response: We believe that mosquito control activities can be 
readily adapted to prevent or minimize potential threats to salamanders 
by appropriate water level management of stock ponds or proper 
application of bacterial larvicides. As a result, we have exempted some 
forms of mosquito control undertaken as routine ranching activities 
from the take prohibitions of the Act (see Special Rule below).
    Comment 21: One commenter stated that there is not evidence that 
roads place California tiger salamander populations at risk, and that 
minimization measures, such as culverts, are established for safe 
passage.
    Our Response: Significant numbers of various species are killed by 
vehicular traffic while crossing roads (Hansen and Tremper 1993; S. 
Sweet in litt. 1993; Joe Medeiros, Sierra College, pers. comm. 1993), 
including California tiger salamanders (D. Cook, pers. comm. 2002; see 
Factor E below). Loss of California tiger salamanders to vehicular-
caused mortality in the vicinity of breeding sites can range from 25 to 
72 percent of the observed salamanders crossing roads (Twitty 1941; S. 
Sweet, in litt. 1993; Launer and Fee 1996). As vehicular usage on 
California roads and road density continue to increase with increases 
in human population and associated urban expansion (California 
Department of Transportation internet website 2003), the threat to 
California tiger salamanders from road-kill mortality will increase. 
Unless there is a means of directing the species to a culvert, we have 
no data suggesting that a salamander would seek or use a culvert in 
preference to just crossing a road at

[[Page 47225]]

the place they encountered one, or that the presence of culverts 
reduces crossing risk to salamanders.
    Comment 22: Some commenters stated that we did not discuss the 
usefulness of stock ponds for the species.
    Our Response: Stock ponds can be useful aquatic habitats for 
breeding of the Central California tiger salamander. However, stock 
ponds require management to ensure their long-term habitat suitability 
for the species (Shaffer in litt. 2003; see 4(d) rule below). We 
recognize the usefulness of stock ponds as potential breeding habitat 
for the California tiger salamander and encourage their continued use 
through the 4(d) rule that exempts routine ranching activities.

Issue 2. Listing Process

    Comment 23: Many commenters stated that the California Fish and 
Game Commission had reviewed a petition to list the California tiger 
salamander under the California Endangered Species Act and had 
determined that the listing was not warranted. Many of these commenters 
stated that since California Fish and Game Commission made this 
determination there has been no new scientific information to indicate 
that the species warrants protection under the Act.
    Our Response: California Fish and Game Commission determined that 
the listing of the California tiger salamander was not warranted under 
the California Endangered Species Act. The Service has proposed listing 
the Central California tiger salamander as a threatened species based 
on our evaluation of the status of the species and five factor 
analysis, and the best available commercial and scientific information 
as required by the Federal Endangered Species Act.
    Comment 24: A few commenters stated that the information used in 
the original petition (Shaffer et al. 1993) was for the purpose of 
conducting genetic analysis of the species or that the petition did not 
provide an adequate argument for the species to be listed.
    Our Response: In our evaluation of a listing petition and 
subsequent status survey and eventual listing determination, we are 
required to evaluate all information available regarding the status of 
a species when making a listing determination. Our positive findings 
for the 90-day, 12-month, proposed listing rule, and this final listing 
rule use the best scientific and commercial data available, as we are 
required to use in reaching our conclusions.
    Comment 25: Many commenters stated that the information used by the 
Service in the proposed rule was not shared or available to the public.
    Our Response: As stated in the proposed rule, the complete file for 
the rule is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal 
business hours at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. In addition, 
the proposed rule stated that all comments received during the comment 
period were available for public review. The complete file for this 
rule is available for inspection, by appointment, during normal 
business hours at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
    Comment 26: Many commenters stated that the proposed listing was a 
``rushed process'' and these commenters requested further review and 
scientific analysis before the Service makes a final determination.
    Our Response: The purpose of publishing a proposed rule and 
soliciting public input during the comment period is to fully involve 
the public in the listing process. We held six workshops and 10 public 
hearings in California to encourage agency and public input into the 
review of the proposed rule. We solicited 28 recognized experts and 
specialists to review the proposed rule and received responses from 11 
of these experts. We utilized this information in making the final 
determination. In order to receive adequate information from the 
public, we extended the public comment period twice. In total, the 
comment period was open for 150 days.
    Comment 27: Several commenters stated that the proposed listing 
should undergo a scientific peer review before the Service makes a 
final determination. Another commenter stated that the Service did not 
conduct a meaningful peer review because the Service requested the same 
information from peer reviewers as it did from the general public.
    Our Response: In accordance with our July 1, 1994, Interagency 
Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities 
(59 FR 34270), we solicited review from 28 experts in the fields of 
ecology, conservation, genetics, taxonomy and management. The purpose 
of such a review is to ensure that listing decisions are based on 
scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses, including input 
from appropriate experts. The 11 peer reviewers who provided comments 
on the proposed listing supported the listing of the Central California 
tiger salamander as threatened. Peer reviewers provided additional 
documentation of threats to the species and potential conservation 
measures. That information has been incorporated into this final rule. 
We also requested peer review from nine university scientists on the 
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) study of the California tiger salamander 
conducted by Dr. H.B. Shaffer and Dr. P.C. Trenham of the University 
California at Davis (Shaffer and Trenham 2003). Three researchers 
reviewed the report. Their comments are summarized above in the Peer 
Review section.

Issue 3. Cost and Regulatory Burden

    Comment 28: Many commenters, including local governments, stated 
that the listing of the Central California tiger salamander would 
increase regulatory burdens and costs of completing projects and would 
have a negative impact on the local economy. Several commenters stated 
that the Service needs to address the economic impact in the proposed 
listing of the Central California tiger salamander. Several commenters 
stated that the listing would reduce local government's authority over 
land use decisions. Commenters also stated that the listing would have 
a negative impact on the California and national economies. Several 
commenters stated that if the Central California tiger salamander were 
listed, it would be expensive to hire consulting biologists and provide 
mitigation. One commenter requested that if the Central California 
tiger salamander were listed, then mitigation ratios for projects 
impacting California tiger salamanders and survey protocols be 
published simultaneously with the final rule. A few commenters 
expressed concern about the regulatory burden the proposed Central 
California tiger salamander listing would place on pesticide 
application, mosquito control, rodent control, and the relation of 
these regulated activities to human health. One commenter expressed 
concern about whether existing agricultural practices would constitute 
a section 9 violation if the Central California tiger salamander were 
listed. One commenter requested that all activities that do not 
constitute a section 9 violation be listed in the final rule.
    Our Response: Under section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we must base a 
listing decision solely on the best scientific and commercial data 
available. The legislative history of this provision clearly states the 
intent of Congress to ensure that listing decisions are `` * * * based 
solely on biological criteria and to prevent non-biological criteria 
from affecting such decisions

[[Page 47226]]

* * * '' (House of Representatives Report Number 97-835, 97th Congress, 
Second Session 19 (1982)). As further stated in the legislative 
history, `` * * * economic considerations have no relevance to 
determinations regarding the status of species * * * '' (Id. at 20). 
Therefore, we did not consider the economic impacts of listing the 
Central California tiger salamander.
    In our Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy of Endangered 
Species Act Section 9 Prohibitions (59 FR 34272, July 1, 1994), we 
stated our policy to identify, to the extent known at the time a 
species is listed, specific activities that will not be considered 
likely to result in violation of Section 9. In accordance with that 
policy, we have published in this final rule a list of activities we 
believe will not result in violation of Section 9 of the Act (see 
Available Conservation Measures below).
    Comment 29: One commenter stated that California tiger salamanders 
that hybridized with non-native tiger salamanders should not be 
afforded regulatory protections under the Act if the Central California 
tiger salamander were listed and that we were inconsistent with the 
recent westslope cutthroat trout determination (68 FR 46989).
    Our Response: We do not believe our determination here is 
inconsistent with the 12-month finding for the listing of the westslope 
cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi) (68 FR 46989). We noted in 
that finding that ``our increasing understanding of the wide range of 
possible outcomes resulting from exchanges of genetic material between 
taxonomically distinct species, and between entities within taxonomic 
species that also can be listed under the Act (i.e., subspecies, DPSs), 
requires the Service to address these situations on a case-by-case 
basis'' (68 FR 46992). We also stated our intention to evaluate long-
term conservation implications for each taxon separately on a case-by-
case basis where introgressive hybridization may have occurred.
    Distinguishing between native California tiger salamanders and 
hybrid animals appears to require some scientific and technical 
expertise. We understand that it is difficult for non-experts to make 
the distinction based on morphology alone and that a number of 
misidentifications have been made as a result (Shaffer and Trenham 
2002). The best way to identify hybrid or introgressed individuals at 
this point appears to be using sophisticated molecular genetic 
techniques. Because of the difficulty distinguishing hybrid and 
introgressed individuals from native California tiger salamanders, we 
believe it is both inappropriate and impractical to distinguish between 
them under the Act.
    Comment 30: A few commenters expressed concern about the potential 
regulatory protection to ground squirrels that would result from 
listing the Central California tiger salamander and the ground 
squirrel's relation to incidences of the plague. Several other 
commenters also stated that the potential regulatory protection to 
ground squirrels would result in their inability to conduct rodent 
control in the interest of public health.
    Our Response: In situations where human health and safety are at 
risk, human health and safety concerns would be a priority in making 
decisions about appropriate rodent control. We believe that ground 
squirrel control can occur in a manner that minimally affects 
California tiger salamander.

Issue 4. Notification and Public Comment

    Comment 31: A number of commenters stated that landowners were 
either not notified, or not notified in a timely manner, and not given 
an adequate opportunity to comment on the proposed rule. The commenters 
also stated that the number of public hearings was inadequate to obtain 
full public input on the proposal and that additional public hearings 
should be held. A number of commenters also stated that the comment 
period on the proposed rule should be extended from September 22, 2003, 
to allow for additional outreach to interested parties as well as to 
hold more public hearings.
    Our Response: We are obligated to hold at least one public hearing 
on a listing proposal, if requested to do so prior to 15 days before 
the end of a comment period (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(5)(E)). We held a total 
of 10 public hearings on our proposal to list the Central California 
tiger salamander as a threatened species, the proposed reclassification 
of the Santa Barbara and Sonoma DPSs from endangered to threatened, and 
the proposed exemption for routine ranching activities. We also held 
six public workshops to notify the public of the proposed rule and to 
answer questions regarding the California tiger salamander and the 
proposed rule. In addition to the public hearings and public workshops, 
we attended a public meeting organized by Congressmen Dennis Cardoza 
and George Radanovich in Merced, California, on June 12, 2003, and in 
Modesto, California, on October 24, 2003, to discuss the proposed rule 
and answer questions regarding the California tiger salamander and the 
proposed rule.
    Written public comments were accepted at all the public hearings, 
workshops, and the Merced and Modesto meetings, and entered into the 
supporting record for the rulemaking. Oral comments given at the public 
hearings were also accepted into the supporting record. In making our 
decision on the proposed rules, written comments were given the same 
weight as oral comments presented at hearings. We conducted much of our 
outreach about the proposed listing of the Central California tiger 
salamander through legal notices in numerous regional newspapers, 
telephone calls, letters, and news releases faxed and/or mailed to 
appropriate elected officials, local jurisdictions, and interest 
groups. We also posted the proposed rule, schedule of workshops and 
hearings, and other associated material on our Sacramento and Ventura 
Fish and Wildlife Office internet sites. We believe that our 
notification and outreach process was sufficient to make the public 
aware of this proposal. Further, our efforts in this process satisfied 
the requirements of the Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 
U.S.C. 551 et seq.) (APA) for promulgating Federal regulations 
regarding listing actions.
    The comment period for the proposed rule was initially open for 60 
days, closing on July 22, 2003. On July 3, 2003, we extended the 
comment period until September 22, 2003. The comment period was re-
opened on September 30, 2003, for an additional 30 days and closed on 
October 31, 2003. In total, the comment period was open for 150 days.
    Comment 32: A few commenters stated that the Service should provide 
more information regarding the proposed rule on our website.
    Our Response: Information on the California tiger salamander was 
available on our website (http://sacramento.fws.gov) related to the 
proposed rule, workshops, hearings, the status of the comment period, 
biological information, and contacts to gather additional information 
on the species. An e-mail address posted on our website offers the 
public the opportunity to offer suggestions or request the webmaster to 
include additional information.
    Comment 33: One commenter stated that minority and disadvantaged 
people were not given the opportunity to comment on the proposed rule.
    Our Response: We conducted extensive public outreach (see also 
comments 26 and 31 above) on the proposed rule to inform all affected

[[Page 47227]]

stakeholder groups and populations, with the reasonable expectation 
that the information would reach minority and disadvantaged 
populations. For instance, we scheduled 10 workshops and public 
hearings throughout California and released information to the news 
media in communities with substantial minority and disadvantaged 
populations. We also produced news releases that were widely 
distributed to newspapers and radio and television stations throughout 
the state; posted information on Fish and Wildlife Service internet 
sites, and placed notices in newspapers in communities with a large 
percentage of minority residents. In addition, as stated in the Federal 
Register notice, persons needing reasonable accommodations in order to 
attend and participate in the public hearings could contact the 
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Service Office at least one week prior to 
the hearing.

Issue 5. Property Rights

    Comment 34: Several commenters stated that the listing would result 
in the loss of property rights and decreased land values.
    Our Response: The listing of a species and the functioning of the 
Act does result in the imposition of land use constraints. However, we 
have attempted to address only those activities that threaten the 
continual existence of the California tiger salamander. We have 
exempted many routine ranching activities from the take prohibitions of 
Section 9 of the Act through the special rule. We will assist 
landowners in the identification of proposed activities that could 
result in take (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct), 
develop measures to minimize the potential for take, and work with them 
to obtain authorizations for incidental take through sections 7 and 10 
of the Act. Recovery planning for this species may include 
recommendations for land acquisition or easements involving private 
landowners. Any such efforts will be undertaken with the full 
cooperation of the landowners.

Issue 6. Critical Habitat and Recovery Planning

    Comment 35: Several commenters expressed concern that the proposed 
rule included or was a designation of critical habitat for the Central 
California tiger salamander. Several of these commenters stated that 
their property did not have the species or its habitat present on their 
property and that they requested that their property be exempted from 
the proposed critical habitat designation. A few commenters stated that 
the Service should designate critical habitat for the California tiger 
salamander. A few commenters stated that the discussion on critical 
habitat designation in the proposed rule was inappropriate.
    Our Response: We are proposing critical habitat for the Central 
California tiger salamander population in an upcoming rule. In addition 
we will finalize critical habitat for the Santa Barbara California 
tiger salamander population by the court-ordered deadline of November 
15, 2004. We intend to publish a proposed rule to designate critical 
habitat for the Sonoma geographic area in the future. When that rule is 
finalized, the critical habitat designation for the rangewide 
California tiger salamander will be complete.
    Comment 36: Several commenters stated that the Service should also 
complete a recovery plan for the species. Several commenters, including 
local governments, requested that, if the species were listed, then 
they should be able to review a draft version of the recovery plan.
    Our Response: A recovery plan will be developed, in coordination 
with stakeholders. This plan will identify recovery objectives and 
describe specific management actions necessary to achieve the 
conservation and long-term survival of the species. We anticipate that 
these management actions will include habitat protection and 
restoration, and efforts to conduct further surveys and research on 
this species. The draft recovery plan will be made available for public 
review and comment once it has been prepared.

Issue 7. Designation and Listing Status of the Central California Tiger 
Salamander

    Comment 37: Numerous commenters stated that the Central California 
tiger salamander should be listed as an endangered species rather than 
threatened.
    Our Response: As discussed in this final rule, we have concluded 
that the appropriate listing status is threatened. While there are a 
number of factors that put the population at risk, they are not so 
imminent that we believe the population is in danger of extinction at 
this time (i.e., it does not meet the definition of endangered). 
Rather, we believe the Central California tiger salamander is likely to 
become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range 
in the foreseeable future (i.e., it meets the definition of 
threatened).
    Comment 38: A few commenters stated that the Central California 
tiger salamander does not qualify as a Distinct Population Segment or 
that it is inappropriate to consider it a DPS given the listing of 
Santa Barbara and Sonoma counties as DPSs (i.e., we should have 
considered the species range wide instead of piece by piece). Another 
commenter stated the Central California tiger salamander DPS should be 
designated as four DPSs corresponding to the four sub-populations of 
the Central California tiger salamander. In contrast, a different 
commenter stated that there was no basis to subdivide the Central 
California tiger salamander into four DPSs.
    In addition to these general comments about the appropriateness of 
considering Central California tiger salamander a DPS, we received 
several comments about whether the DPS meets the significance criterion 
of our DPS policy. In part these comments focused on our recent 12-
month finding on western gray squirrel and on National Ass'n of 
Homebuilders, et al. v. Norton, et al., No. 00-0903-PHX-SRB (D.Az.), 
recent litigation about our DPS determination for the cactus 
ferruginous pygmy owl.
    Our Response: We have determined that listing the California tiger 
salamander rangewide is appropriate in light of the fact that all three 
populations share the same threatened status and the Congressional 
direction to use the DPS provision sparingly.

Issue 8. Proposed 4(d) Rule To Exempt Existing Routine Ranching 
Activities

    Comment 39: Several commenters indicated that the proposed 4(d) 
rule to exempt existing routine ranching activities did not adequately 
define the activities proposed from exemption in the proposed rule. 
Many commenters made specific recommendations for additional activities 
they thought should be exempted in the special rule. Additional 
activities suggested for exemption included activities such as dairy 
operations, irrigated agriculture, and ground squirrel control, 
projects that have received approval from Federal, State, and local 
governments, and livestock grazing in vernal pools. One commenter 
stated that the Service should exempt take through conservation plans.
    Our Response: The final version of the special rule includes an 
expanded definition of routine ranching practices and incorporates 
additional activities we believe are consistent with conservation of 
the California tiger salamander, which may provide conservation 
benefits to the California

[[Page 47228]]

tiger salamander through private landowner partnerships, and which are 
associated with largely natural rangeland environments with low, 
infrequent levels of human activity, in which California tiger 
salamander persist.
    Comment 40: Some commenters stated that they were opposed to the 
proposed special rule for a variety of reasons, such as (1) it would 
allow a ``loop hole'' that would result in environmental degradation 
and allow activities that would harm or kill California tiger 
salamander, (2) it did not include enforcement and education 
provisions, and (3) conservation benefits were inadequately described.
    Our Response: The primary threat to California tiger salamander is 
habitat loss and degradation. To the extent ranching activity is 
compatible with the California tiger salamander, we wish to encourage 
such activities to continue. We believe that relaxing the general take 
prohibitions on specific types of non-Federal lands through the special 
rule is likely to encourage continued responsible ranching, a land use 
that provide an overall benefit to the California tiger salamander. We 
also believe that such a special rule will promote the conservation 
efforts and partnerships critical for the recovery of the species. We 
have further described these benefits in our final version of the 
special rule. We have committed to monitor the status of California 
tiger salamander in areas where exempted activities occur (see section 
on special rule). We hope to enlist the partnership of the ranching 
community in education and outreach efforts, subsequent to the listing 
of the Central California tiger salamander, and throughout the recovery 
planning process.
    Comment 41: Los Padres National Forest stated that California tiger 
salamanders were not present on the National Forest and that the 
proposed 4(d) rule should apply to the Los Padres National Forest. The 
USFS issues grazing permits on the Los Padres NF.
    Our Response: Under the 4(d) rule, take of the threatened Central 
California tiger salamander caused by existing routine ranching 
activities on private or Tribal lands for activities that do not have a 
Federal nexus would be exempt from section 9 of the Act. Federal 
agencies have the responsibility to consult with the Service if a 
Federal action may affect a federally-listed species because of their 
section 7 responsibilities under the Act.
    Comment 42: One commenter stated that they were unable to perform 
some of the same activities as included in the proposed 4(d) rule for 
exemption because they were not conducting those activities as part of 
routine ranching activities.
    Our Response: The special 4(d) rule to exempt routine ranching 
practices is intended to promote a land use practice that is compatible 
with the conservation of the California tiger salamander. If an 
individual or organization seeks to perform the activities that are 
exempt under this special rule, but are not part of routine ranching 
activities, then incidental take authorization should be obtained 
through section 7 or 10 of the Act. If the activities have a net 
benefit to the California tiger salamander, then take may be authorized 
through a safe harbor agreement.
    Comment 43: Several commenters stated that the proposed rule would 
place a burden on the ranching industry because ranching is no longer 
profitable and the ranching industry requires the need to diversify 
into more intensive agricultural uses that may require destruction of 
rangeland or Central California tiger salamander habitat.
    Our Response: The purpose of the proposed 4(d) rule is to recognize 
the larger conservation value of maintaining existing rangeland that 
support California tiger salamander, even though some specific 
activities may adversely affect them. Activities likely to occur in 
those landscapes should ongoing ranching be removed, such as irrigated 
agriculture or urban development, remove and fragment upland and 
aquatic habitats used for migration, aestivation, and breeding that are 
essential for the species to complete its life history requirements. We 
believe that exemption of the ranching activities described in the 
special rule results in a net benefit to the conservation of the 
California tiger salamander (see Special Rule section below for 
specifics).
    Comment 44: One commenter stated that they did not support the 
proposed exemption for activities that may qualify as conservation 
plans for the California tiger salamander.
    Our Response: We have not included other activities, such as 
conservation plans, as part of a 4(d) rule. We only exempt routine 
ranching practices from the take prohibitions for the Central 
California tiger salamander. Conservation plans have many forms and the 
Act provides for authorization of activities that may take California 
tiger salamanders but which are consistent with conservation plans 
meeting our requirements under safe harbor agreements or habitat 
conservation plans.

Issue 9. Basis for Proposing Threatened Status for Santa Barbara and 
Sonoma County Populations

    Comment 45: Some commenters questioned the soundness of both the 
scientific and procedural basis for the proposal to reclassify the 
Santa Barbara and Sonoma County populations of California tiger 
salamander. Others stated that the Service had failed to demonstrate 
that one or the other, or both, should be listed at all. Some pointed 
out that more breeding sites and habitat have been documented within 
the range of the Santa Barbara DPS since it was listed.
    Our Response: Threats faced by the Santa Barbara and Sonoma County 
California tiger salamander and supporting documentation were reported 
in the final rules to list them as endangered (65 FR 57242 and 68 FR 
13498, respectively). Our analysis of the status of the species 
rangewide, discussed below, has shed additional light on the status of 
the Santa Barbara and Sonoma County populations. In addition, once the 
Santa Barbara population was listed, the number of existing populations 
in Santa Barbara increased as efforts to locate the species increased. 
We now conclude that neither of these populations is currently in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. However, like the species as a whole, these populations are 
subject to a significant threat of additional habitat loss and 
fragmentation, as well as other secondary threats. Given their smaller 
ranges and populations, the Santa Barbara and Sonoma populations remain 
at higher risk that the species as a whole, which, as discussed below, 
we have determined is threatened. Similarly, we have determined that 
the Santa Barbara and Sonoma populations are likely to become 
endangered in the foreseeable future, and are also threatened.

Issue 10. Discreteness and Significance of Santa Barbara and Sonoma 
Populations

    Comment 46: Numerous commenters stated that the Service failed to 
demonstrate that the Santa Barbara or Sonoma populations of California 
tiger salamander satisfy the discreteness or significance criteria of 
the Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population 
Segments (61 FR 4722). Other commenters contended that available 
scientific information on the genetics of the California tiger 
salamander indicated a significant degree of genetic distinction of the 
Santa Barbara or Sonoma County

[[Page 47229]]

populations. Some commenters maintained that the Service failed to 
apply the policy ``sparingly'' as instructed by Congress.
    Our Response: In this rule, we list the California tiger salamander 
as threatened throughout its range, and eliminate the separate listings 
for the Santa Barbara and Sonoma populations.

Summary of Factors Affecting the California Tiger Salamander

    Section 4 of the Act, and the regulations (50 CFR part 424) 
promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act, describe 
the procedures for adding species to the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. We may determine a species to be 
endangered or threatened on the basis of one or more of the five 
factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. These factors, and 
their application to the California tiger salamander, are described 
below.

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

Central Population
    We conducted a GIS analysis of California tiger salamander habitat 
in the range of the Central California tiger salamander for the 
proposed rule. We have modified the analysis for the final rule based 
on comments we received and specific suggestions for refinement of the 
analysis. The analysis we conducted for this final rule is described 
briefly below.
    Identification of salamander locations. Intensive biological 
sampling has occurred in habitats such as vernal pools and stock ponds 
that represent potential breeding habitat for the California tiger 
salamander. In addition, the California tiger salamander has been 
designated as a candidate species since 1994 and has received a great 
deal of attention by biologists, scientists, and applicants for 
projects undergoing environmental review. State and Federal 
environmental laws (see Factor D below) require identification and 
analysis of impacts of the projects on sensitive species. Public 
agencies and project proponents have conducted many biological surveys 
for California tiger salamanders in the course of complying with 
environmental laws since the species' designation as a Federal 
candidate species in 1994. As a result, a great deal of information has 
been gathered on the distribution of the California tiger salamander. 
It is customary for scientists, consultants, and agency biologists to 
report the results of biological surveys for special status species to 
the CNDDB. Unfortunately an unknown amount of potential habitat has not 
been surveyed and much of the available data is contained in a 
patchwork of studies performed for various purposes. However,we believe 
that the location information on California tiger salamanders from 
CNDDB and information that we have obtained from other biologists and 
scientists is the best available information on the species' 
distribution.
    We have analyzed threats to the Central California tiger salamander 
throughout the remaining portions of its range (Bay Area, Central 
Valley, Central Coast, and South San Joaquin regions) using information 
from 632 California tiger salamander records identified in the CNDDB, 
of which 589 records are considered extant by California Department of 
Fish and Game (CDFG) (CNDDB 2003; Service 2004). The CNDDB database 
includes the occurrences listed by Shaffer et al. (1993), Seymour and 
Westphal (1994), LSA Associates, Inc. (1994), and numerous other 
scientists and biologists. The wetlands present at localities in the 
CNDDB for which one or more wetland types were identified included 
vernal pools, artificial bermed ponds or stock ponds, or ponds and 
ditches (CNDDB 2003). Observations reported to CNDDB also include 
reports of the species in upland areas (CNDDB 2003). In addition, we 
used information on 79 California tiger salamander breeding sites from 
Carnegie Off-Road Vehicular Park and the Los Vaqueros watershed 
(Buckingham in litt. 2003; Alveras in litt. 2003). It is possible that 
some of these records located at Carnegie Off-Road Vehicular Park and 
the Los Vaqueros watershed may have already been submitted to the CNDDB 
database. If records were used twice in this analysis, they would not 
affect our estimate of California tiger salamander habitat because 
these overlapping records would fall within existing polygons. At each 
of these localities, at least one California tiger salamander (adult, 
juvenile, or larva) has been identified by a biologist. In many cases 
observations of the species are from breeding sites, although in some 
instances these records include observations of the California tiger 
salamander in upland areas (CNDDB 2003). In total, we were aware of 632 
CNDDB occurrences in this analysis and 79 additional locations. In 
response to a comment that we were arbitrarily excluding occurrences or 
locations, and therefore, underestimating California tiger salamander 
habitat, we have used all of these 711 occurrences in the analysis 
described below.
    While we have used the best available information to identify 
California tiger salamander locations, we recognize that the 
information available to us likely does not encompass all salamander 
breeding ponds and potential upland habitat because an unknown amount 
of habitat on private lands have not been surveyed. We believe that 
additional surveys on private lands would identify additional 
California tiger salamander.
    Estimation of habitat using locality information. Our estimate of 
Central California tiger salamander habitat is the result of a several 
step process. We began by identifying known salamander records as 
described above. We then drew a 2,092-m (1.3-mile) boundary outside the 
perimeter of each record. We note that some records were points while 
others were circles or irregular polygons. We used this distance 
because it is the maximum distance a California tiger salamander has 
been observed from the nearest breeding pond (see Species Background 
above). One disadvantage of using this distance is that not all 
recorded localities represent breeding ponds and the distance is 
fundamentally based on how far we understand salamanders move away from 
breeding ponds. Therefore, this approach may result in an overestimate 
of habitat. We are comfortable that such an overestimate is not a 
significant error because, as noted above, we believe that additional 
California tiger salamander breeding locations, that have not been 
surveyed, are likely to exist within the 2,092-m (1.3-mi) boundary.
    The polygons generated from the 2,092-m (1.3-mi) boundary around 
each record contained 756,470 ha (1,869,276 ac). We refined this 
estimate of habitat by examining the area within each polygon to 
determine the area of land that was urbanized, had already been 
converted to intensive agriculture, or consisted of habitat types 
unlikely to be inhabited by California tiger salamanders. After these 
adjustments, our estimate of habitat was 378,882 ha (936,204 ac). This 
area is our best estimate of the amount of habitat associated with 
known California tiger salamander records.
    We then projected the loss of Central California tiger salamander 
habitat into the future. We used general plan information and 
information on future low-density residential development to determine 
how much of the remaining 378,882 ha (936,204 ac) of habitat is likely 
to be lost in the future (Service 2004).

[[Page 47230]]

Results of Service Analysis of Habitat
    The results of our GIS analysis of Central California tiger 
salamander habitat are discussed below. We discuss the estimated amount 
of Central California tiger salamander habitat present; habitat 
projected to be lost in the future to urban development and low-density 
development; other future development; and our estimate of the amount 
of habitat that is afforded some protection.
    Central California tiger salamander habitat. Our GIS analysis of 
CNNDB and other records indicates that there are currently 
approximately 378,882 ha (936,204 ac, 50 percent of the total polygon 
area, described in the Service Analysis of Central California Tiger 
Salamander Habitat section above) of Central California tiger 
salamander upland and aquatic habitat (Service 2004). The remaining 
land use types (non-habitat) in the Central California tiger salamander 
polygons included 124,079 ha (306,595 acres, 16 percent of polygon 
area) of agricultural row crops, and 146,922 ha (363,040 acres, 19 
percent of polygon area) of urban areas, and 50,783 ha (125,484 acres, 
7 percent of polygon area) of orchards and vineyards (California GAP 
1996; Service 2004). The remaining 8 percent of the Central California 
tiger salamander polygons consisted of other land uses and habitat 
types that California tiger salamanders are not known to inhabit.
    Urban development. Of the 378,882 ha (936,204 ac) of Central 
California tiger salamander habitat, 28,526 ha (70,489 ac, 8 percent) 
fall within areas delineated by general plans or other planned 
development (high-density residential, medium-density residential, 
industrial, and commercial development) (Service 2004). Because they 
are within areas that are to be developed, we consider these areas to 
be threatened by development. These development projects may destroy 
and fragment upland and/or aquatic breeding habitat, killing California 
tiger salamanders and reducing the likelihood of long-term persistence 
and viability at the affected localities.
    Low-density development. We determined that an additional 24,240 ha 
(59,897 ac, 6 percent) of the estimated 378,882 ha (936,204 ac) of 
Central California tiger salamander habitat is threatened by low-
density residential development (2 to 20 acre parcels), and 45,880 ha 
(113,371 ac, 12 percent) by very-low-density residential development 
(20 to 160 acre parcels) (R. Johnston, UC Davis, in litt. 2003; Service 
2004). The land use data we used to evaluate the threat of low-density 
and very-low-density development is based on a minimum delineation of 
these areas in 2000 and represents the current land use rather than the 
projected land use in the foreseeable future (R. Johnston, UC Davis, in 
litt. 2003). These areas will likely be further developed resulting in 
a greater number of houses per area in the future, and in some cases, 
low-density areas are regions that will become incorporated into high-
density urban areas (R. Johnston, UC Davis, in litt. 2003).
    Low-density residential development is a greater threat to the 
Central California tiger salamander than very-low-density residential 
development because low density has a greater number of houses per 
acre, which will result in greater habitat destruction and 
fragmentation. These low-density housing areas and rural residential 
areas may result in the extirpation of California tiger salamander at 
some locations due to construction of houses that destroy breeding 
sites and/or indirectly affect breeding sites by reducing their long-
term ability to serve as breeding habitat (by alteration of hydrology 
and increased sedimentation). Structures, roads, and highways fragment 
habitat and prevent salamanders from reaching their breeding sites 
because the upland habitat is eliminated or their migratory corridors 
are disrupted (Marsh and Trenham 2001). Reduced availability of upland 
habitat decreases the long-term population viability of California 
tiger salamander breeding sites (Trenham and Shaffer in review). In the 
eastern United States, 25 percent of the upland habitat within 300 m 
(984 ft) of a spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) vernal pool 
breeding site was destroyed, resulting in a 53 percent decline in the 
abundance of the animals (Calhoun and Klemens 2002; Jung in litt. 
2003). These studies demonstrate the importance of upland habitat to 
maintain the long-term viability of California tiger salamanders.
    Low-density housing would also further fragment Central California 
tiger salamander habitats. The Sierra Nevada and Coast Range foothill 
counties are among the fastest growing counties in California (CGOPR 
2003). California tiger salamander is threatened by low-density 
population expansion farther into the east and west margins of the 
Central Valley, located in these fast growing counties, and which are 
the last stronghold of remaining California tiger salamander habitat. 
California tiger salamanders are known to have high inter-pond 
dispersal between breeding sites where one pond may produce a large 
number of individuals that colonize other less productive ponds 
(Trenham et al. 2001). Therefore, the loss of breeding localities, or 
their isolation due to habitat fragmentation, may result in the 
extirpation of other breeding locations (Marsh and Trenham 2001). 
Decreased landscape connectivity and increased habitat fragmentation 
has had negative effects on other amphibian assemblages, which included 
the tiger salamander Ambystoma tigrinum (Lehtinen et al. 1999).
    Increased numbers of residents living in low-density residential 
developments and rural houses may also result in increased introduction 
of non-native predators (see Factor C below), increased applications of 
pesticides or agricultural contaminants, and rodent control that may 
reduce the long-term viability of the California tiger salamander 
inhabiting these areas (see Factor E below). The California tiger 
salamander may also be threatened by the construction of new roads or 
increased mortality due to increased vehicle traffic (see Factor E 
below).
    Other future development. Our estimate of the location and amount 
of habitat threatened by conversion and fragmentation from urban uses 
described above does not consider all of the projected human population 
growth, urbanization, and subsequent habitat loss that will occur in 
the counties inhabited by the Central California tiger salamander 
because most city and county general plans have variable planning 
horizons that do not extend beyond 20 years (R. Johnston, UC Davis, 
pers. comm. 2004). California developers and builders constructed 2.8 
million new housing units between 1980 and 1997, and an additional 
220,000 units will be required each year for the next 20 years with the 
human population of the State almost doubling in less than 40 years 
(CGOPR 2003). New housing is currently being constructed in low-density 
developments on the edge of urban areas or beyond such areas (CGOPR 
2003). Most of the future growth of California will be outside of the 
current metropolitan areas (San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego), 
occurring in the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Imperial valleys (CGOPR 
2003). Two of these valleys are inhabited by salamanders in the Central 
Valley and South San Joaquin Valley regions.
    Conversion to intensive agriculture. Additionally, the projection 
described above does not consider the loss of the Central California 
tiger salamander habitat caused by conversion of habitats to intensive 
agriculture. Projecting the future loss of Central California tiger

[[Page 47231]]

salamander habitat from conversion of rangeland to intensive 
agriculture is difficult because conversion to this land use is largely 
unregulated by cities and counties. Conversion to intensive agriculture 
largely depends upon the individual landowner and is based on numerous 
factors that are difficult to predict, such as economic considerations, 
markets, and water availability. The loss of rangelands and vernal pool 
grasslands, portions of which California tiger salamanders occupy, has 
been well documented in counties within the range of the Central 
California tiger salamander and annual rates of loss have been 
estimated (discussed in detail in the Urban and Agricultural Land Use 
sections above) (CDC 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002; Holland 1978, 1998a, 
1998b, 2003; Jones and Stokes Associates 1987; 59 FR 48136; Keeler-Wolf 
et al. 1998; CDFG 2003; CDWR 1998). The cumulative loss of vernal pool 
grassland has been estimated at 78 percent by the late 1990s, and 
annual rates of loss have been between 1 and 3 percent during the 1980s 
and 1990s. Some of the loss of Central California tiger salamander 
habitat has resulted from conversion to intensive agriculture, and some 
is attributable to urbanization and other non-agricultural activities 
that have destroyed the species' habitat.
    Even though future conversion of rangeland to intensive agriculture 
is difficult to estimate and has not been included in our GIS analysis, 
we believe that the continued loss of Central California tiger 
salamander habitat due to intensive agriculture represents an important 
threat to the species. Throughout the range of the Central California 
tiger salamander there has been a cumulative net loss of irrigated 
agriculture acreage through conversion to other land uses, such as 
development; however, there have been additional conversions of 
rangeland to irrigated agriculture, expanding this land use activity in 
areas such as the San Joaquin Valley and Central Coast (CDWR 1998; CDC 
2002).
    This conversion of land use activity has continually occurred 
throughout the salamander's range and we anticipate this conversion of 
land use activity will continue to adversely affect additional Central 
California tiger salamander habitat because of the significant 
projected increase in human population growth (75 percent increase from 
2000 to 2040) in the range of the Central California tiger salamander 
(CDF 1998). This population growth will continue the trend of 
conversion of irrigated agriculture conversion to urban use, with a 
subsequent displacement of intensive agriculture on to rangeland in the 
foothill areas of the Central Coast or east side of the San Joaquin 
Valley (CDWR 1998; CDC 2002). However, the rate of displacement and 
subsequent conversion to intensive agriculture is expected to continue 
at lower rates than in the past as areas with suitable soils and water 
availability necessary for intensive agriculture become increasingly 
scarce. Additionally, there can be a financial incentive for landowners 
to convert existing rangeland and grasslands areas to irrigated crops. 
Generally, rangeland is valued much less (value per acre) than all 
irrigated agricultural crops in the area where Central California tiger 
salamander occurs (American Society of Farm Managers and Rural 
Appraisers 2003). Conversion of Central California tiger salamander 
habitat to intensive agriculture, in addition to the loss of habitat to 
rural residential housing (see Low-Density Development section above), 
further fragments the species' habitat. Fragmentation of habitat may 
not directly impact breeding sites but creates a barrier to inter-pond 
migration of salamanders and to movement of salamanders between 
breeding sites and upland habitat landscapes (Marsh and Trenham 2001; 
Trenham and Shaffer in review; Calhoun and Klemens 2002; Jung in litt. 
2003).
    Protected habitat. The Service has determined that approximately 
76,501 ha (189,032 ac, 20 percent) of the total estimated Central 
California tiger salamander habitat associated with known records is 
protected to some degree (Service 2004). Protection of the species 
itself varies in these areas because we included a variety of land use 
designations that may provide only some protection for the species. 
Some sites may be managed to benefit the species, such as conservation 
banks, National Wildlife Refuges, and East Bay Regional Park District 
(EBRPD). Even if these areas are not specifically managed for the 
benefit of the species, the areas are protected from development and 
conversion to intensive agriculture. Many of these same areas are 
likely not providing protection from possible death, due to non-native 
predators (see Factor C below), agricultural and landscaping 
contaminants, rodent control, roads, and hybridization (see Factor E 
below). We estimated that approximately 24 percent of the 76,501 ha 
(189,032 ac) of protected habitat have hybridized tiger salamanders 
inhabiting the habitat or the California tiger salamanders in these 
habitats are threatened by hybridization (Service 2004; see Factor E 
below). Therefore our estimate is a liberal estimate of habitat in 
which the Central California tiger salamander is protected.
Sonoma and Santa Barbara Populations
    Habitat loss in the range of the Sonoma and Santa Barbara 
populations was discussed in the listing rules for the Santa Barbara 
County DPS of the California tiger salamander (65 FR 57242), and the 
Sonoma County DPS of the California tiger salamander (67 FR 47726). New 
information suggests that additional locations of occupied salamander 
habitat exist in these areas. At the time of the final rule for Santa 
Barbara County, 27 breeding ponds in six subpopulations had been 
identified. Since that time, the number of known breeding ponds has 
increased to 46 within the same six subpopulations in Santa Barbara 
County as a result of biological surveys conducted for potential 
projects. These ponds include 23 artificial ponds, 4 human-altered 
ponds, and 19 natural ponds. The final rule listing the Sonoma County 
DPS as endangered identified eight known remaining breeding sites. Six 
additional breeding sites (Gobbi, Duer Road, Haroutunian, Alton Lane, 
Southwest Community Park, Yuba Drive) are now recognized. All but two 
(Haroutunian and Alton Lane) of these known breeding sites are 
distributed in the City of Santa Rosa and immediate associated 
unincorporated areas, an area approximately 6 km (4 mi) long by 6 km (4 
mi) wide.
Urban and Agricultural Land Uses
    Destruction, modification, and curtailment of California tiger 
salamander habitat is caused by conversion of rangeland to a variety of 
urban and agricultural land uses. We define urban impacts to include a 
variety of nonagricultural development activities such as building and 
maintenance of housing, commercial, and industrial developments; 
construction and widening of roads and highways; golf course 
construction and maintenance; landfill operation and expansion; 
operation of gravel mines and quarries; dam building and inundation of 
habitat by reservoirs; and other infrastructure activities that support 
urban areas. Agricultural impacts include the conversion of native 
habitat by discing and deep-ripping; and cultivation, planting, 
irrigation, and maintenance of row crops, orchards, and vineyards. 
These impacts threaten both breeding and upland habitat.
    Upland habitat. We have concluded that California tiger salamanders 
have declined due to habitat conversion to

[[Page 47232]]

intensive agriculture and urbanization (Davidson et al. 2002, Fisher 
and Shaffer 1996). Researchers believe that even salamanders inhabiting 
breeding ponds that are protected from development may not persist as 
viable populations if upland habitat is unavailable or reduced in area, 
or if breeding ponds become fragmented and isolated from other ponds 
(Marsh and Trenham 2001; Jung in litt. 2003; Trenham and Shaffer in 
review). Earthmoving operations and cultivation in upland habitat can 
directly or indirectly kill or injure California tiger salamanders in 
burrows or on the surface by crushing or trapping them. Such activities 
render all affected areas unsuitable for salamander breeding, feeding, 
and sheltering. Earth disturbing practices can also expose salamanders 
to adverse environmental conditions (increased predation, high 
temperatures, low humidity, destroy food sources) and alter surface 
hydrology (potentially affecting breeding ponds). Discing, deep-
ripping, or grading of upland habitat also destroys California ground 
squirrel burrows and crevices utilized by the salamander, making 
suitable upland sites unavailable and likely reducing long-term adult 
survival of Central California tiger salamanders (Loredo et al. 1996).
    Wetland habitat. Filling, discing, or excavating wetland habitat 
can directly kill or injure larvae, eggs, or breeding adults, and 
prevent future use of the wetland for reproduction. Additionally, 
surviving adults may be unable to locate alternative breeding sites in 
subsequent years if habitat is present but has become highly fragmented 
by roads, housing, agriculture, and other non-habitat elements. Some 
changes in vernal pool or pond inundation duration and depth caused by 
urban and agricultural land use (e.g., digging of drainage/irrigation 
ditches, construction of permanent ponds or reservoirs, deepening or 
berming of seasonal wetlands, redirection of runoff from developments) 
can reduce reproductive success for California tiger salamander by: (1) 
Prematurely drying wetlands and desiccating larvae; (2) extending the 
inundation period and facilitating invasion of non-native predators 
(see Factor C below); (3) creating conditions that are more conducive 
for hybridization with non-native tiger salamanders (see Factor E 
below); and (4) increasing vulnerability to disease by increasing 
isolation and fragmentation (see Factor C below). The actual effect of 
these activities is dependant on the specifics of the situation.
    Loss of habitat. Although the California tiger salamander still 
occurs throughout the majority of its historic range, estimates of the 
past and present extent of suitable habitat for the California tiger 
salamander within its historic range indicate that the area of the 
species' natural habitat has been substantially reduced and that the 
species has become increasingly rare in regions of its range (Shaffer 
et al. 1993; Barry and Shaffer 1994; Fisher and Shaffer 1996). Some 
researchers estimate that as much as 75 percent of the area of 
California tiger salamander historic natural habitat has been lost 
(Shaffer et al. 1993). Historically, approximately 3.7 million ha (9.1 
million ac) of valley and coastal grasslands existed within the range 
of the Central California tiger salamander (Kuchler 1988). Researchers 
are of the opinion that valley and coastal grasslands were very likely 
used by the species. An additional 2.6 million ha (6.5 million ac) 
supporting an overstory of blue oak/foothill pine, valley oak, or mixed 
hardwoods (Kuchler 1988) historically existed; some portion of these 
habitats may have been used by the species. However, urbanization and 
intensive agriculture have eliminated virtually all valley grassland 
and oak savanna habitat from the Central Valley floor. Loss of 
grasslands has exceeded the loss of all other habitats in California 
(Ewing et al. 1988). It has been estimated that less than 10 percent of 
California's Central Valley grasslands remain (CDFG 2003). Valley 
grasslands and, consequently, Central California tiger salamanders, are 
now distributed primarily in a ring around the Central Valley (Heady 
1977; Holland 1978).
    The relative loss of habitat has also been significant with respect 
to vernal pool grasslands, the historic breeding habitat of the 
California tiger salamander (Trenham et al. 2000). Approximately 1.68 
million ha (4.15 million ac) of grasslands in 20 Central Valley 
counties are estimated to have supported vernal pools at the time of 
European settlement (Holland 1978, 1998a, 1998b; Holland and Jain 1988; 
CDFG 2003) although there is no historical data to substantiate this 
estimate. Most of this area, except northern Sacramento Valley, was 
within the California tiger salamander's assumed historic range 
(Shaffer et al. 1993). The remaining vernal pool complexes in 
California are now fragmented and reduced in area (59 FR 48136). Where 
vernal pools exist, the habitat is often disturbed and degraded and the 
natural regime has been affected by drainage modification, off-road 
vehicle use, gravel mining, non-native plant invasion, road 
construction, and urban development (Jones and Stokes Associates 1987; 
59 FR 48136; Keeler-Wolf et al. 1998). Vernal pools in California are 
now recognized as threatened resources, and many of the species that 
inhabit them are listed as threatened or endangered species (Jones and 
Stokes Associates 1987; Wright 1991; 59 FR 48136). Estimates of vernal 
pool habitat loss through the 1980s were at 2 to 3 percent annually; 
this rate of loss is compounded continually (Holland 1988). During the 
1980s and 1990s, vernal pool grasslands continued to be lost at an 
estimated rate of 1.5 percent per year (Holland 1998a, 1998b). As of 
1997, 377,165 ha (931,991 ac) of vernal pool grasslands remained in the 
Central Valley, representing a loss of approximately 78 percent 
(Holland 1998a, 1998b; CDFG 2003). Along the southeastern edge of the 
Central Valley, from San Joaquin to Fresno counties, at least 25 
percent of the 259-ha (640-ac) sections that had contained vernal pools 
in 1970 (Holland 1978) were wholly converted to agriculture or urban 
uses by 1994 (Seymour and Westphal 1994). This conversion estimate is 
probably conservative because it does not include partially converted 
sections where vernal pool habitat may also have been lost (Seymour and 
Westphal 1994). Holland (1998a) estimated that at a continued 1.5 
percent annual loss of vernal pools in California, 50 percent of the 
vernal pool habitat present in 1997 would be lost by 2043 (46 years), 
representing a cumulative loss of 88 percent of vernal pool grasslands.
    As part of an evaluation of California tiger salamander status 
throughout their range, Shaffer et al. (1993) detected California tiger 
salamanders in only 36 of 86 localities (42 percent) that had been 
previously recorded, and ponds currently occupied by California tiger 
salamanders were significantly higher in elevation than those that were 
unoccupied or had been previously occupied; although it should be noted 
that these decreases may also be the result of low sampling frequency. 
Some researchers (Shaffer et al. 1993; Seymour and Westphal 1994; 
Fisher and Shaffer 1996; Davidson et al. 2002) believe these and other 
data suggest that many of the low-elevation breeding sites on the 
valley floor have been eliminated in recent years, reducing habitat 
used by this species to higher elevations on the margin of its 
ecological requirements. These higher elevation breeding sites are 
likely human-created stock ponds or bermed ponds that have benefited 
the species by offsetting the loss of the California tiger salamander's 
natural historic vernal pool breeding habitat.

[[Page 47233]]

However, these artificial breeding ponds have a shorter life-span than 
natural vernal pools if not maintained. Additionally, some of these 
artificial breeding ponds can place California tiger salamanders at 
risk of predation by holding water for a greater period than vernal 
pools (see Factor C below), and placing the species at a greater risk 
of hybridization with non-native tiger salamanders (see Factor E 
below).
    In both our final rules listing the Santa Barbara County DPS of the 
California tiger salamander (65 FR 57242), and the Sonoma County DPS of 
the California tiger salamander (67 FR 47726), we described land 
conversions to more intensive agriculture, especially conversions to 
grape vineyards, as being a factor in the species' decline. Data from 
the California Agricultural Statistics Service (CASS) (2002) shows 
conversion of rangeland to irrigated agriculture as a factor 
contributing to the species' decline. The data show that the phenomenon 
of rangeland conversion extends over much of the Central California 
tiger salamander's current and historic range. As land in irrigated 
agriculture is lost in the Central Valley due to urbanization, its 
cumulative loss has been partially offset through expansion of land in 
irrigated agriculture on the east side of the Central Valley and Coast 
Range, which in turn results in the loss of rangeland or grasslands 
which can be inhabited by the California tiger salamander (California 
Governor's Office of Planning and Research (CGOPR) 2003; California 
Department of Conservation (CDC) 2002; CNDDB 2003).
    Urban and population growth. Urban development poses a similar 
significant threat to the Central California tiger salamander in 
particular. As the human population of the State of California 
continues to increase, there is a concomitant increase in urban and 
suburban development. According to the 2000 census, the number of 
people in California has increased by 13.8 percent since 1990 
(California Department of Finance (CDF) 2002). The average growth in 
human population within the counties in the range of the Central 
California tiger salamander during this period has been 19.5 percent 
(CDF 1998). Counties in the East Bay region and the Highway 99 corridor 
in the San Joaquin Valley are also undergoing increases in urbanization 
related to population growth (CDF 1998; CDC 2002). From 1995 to 2020, 
the human population in the range of the Central California tiger 
salamander (Central Valley, Bay Area, and Central Coast counties) is 
projected to grow by 49 percent (from 12.8 million to 19.1 million 
people) (California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) 1998). 
According to the CDF, the human population in the counties inhabited by 
the Central California tiger salamander is expected to grow by 35 
percent from 2000 to 2020 (from 11.2 million to 15.1 million people) 
and by 75 percent from 2000 to 2040 (from 11.2 million to 19.6 million 
people) (CDF 1998). Therefore, impacts to the Central California tiger 
salamander due to conversion of its habitat resulting from urban 
development are expected to continue (Service 2004).
    Loss of rangeland. Rangeland areas which may contain vernal pool 
grassland habitats, are being lost as a result of rural residential 
development (CGOPR 2003). Privately owned rangeland in California 
decreased by 252,524 ha (624,000 ac) from 1982 to 1997, an average loss 
of 16,997 ha (42,000 ac) per year (U.S. Department of Agriculture 
2003), and from 1998 to 2000 the State lost an additional 21,555 ha 
(53,263 ac) of rangeland (CGOPR 2003). The decline in farm rancher 
income, the aging of ranchers, tax implications of intergenerational 
transfers of ranches, and the difficulty of beginning a ranching 
operation (e.g., in terms of cost and knowledge of ranching) are all 
reasons California is experiencing the loss of rangeland (CGOPR 2003). 
The recent protections afforded numerous vernal pool species (e.g. 
vernal pool crustaceans, vernal pool plants) under the Act will assist 
in slowing future development.
Conclusion for Factor A
    In summary, a primary cause of the decline of the California tiger 
salamander is the loss of habitat due to conversion for residential, 
commercial, and agricultural activities (D. Wake, University of 
California, Berkeley, in litt. 1992; T. Jones, University of Michigan, 
in litt. 1993; Shaffer et al. 1993; Jennings and Hayes 1994; Davidson 
et al. 2002; CNDDB 2003; Service 2004). In addition to direct loss of 
habitat, the widespread conversion of land to residential and 
agricultural uses has led to the fragmentation of habitat throughout 
the range of the Central California tiger salamander, and isolation of 
the remaining populations (Shaffer et al. 1993). This fragmentation of 
the remaining habitat is expected to continue in the foreseeable future 
as an effect of the rapidly growing human population in these counties 
within range of the California tiger salamander.

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

    There is no evidence that overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is causing a decline 
of the California tiger salamander.

C. Disease or Predation

Disease
    The specific effects of disease on the California tiger salamander 
are not known. We have to date no information indicating disease is 
prevalent in existing populations in California. Pathogens (fungi, 
bacteria, and viruses) have been known to adversely affect other tiger 
salamander species or other amphibians and chytrid fungus infections 
(chytridiomycosis) have been detected specifically in Central 
California tiger salamanders (Padgett-Flohr 2004). Two of our peer 
reviewers identified chytridiomycosis and ranaviruses as a threat to 
the California tiger salamander because these diseases have been found 
to adversely affect other amphibians, including tiger salamanders 
(Longcore, in litt. 2003; Lips, in litt. 2003). Both of these peer 
reviewers identified non-native species, such as bullfrogs and non-
native tiger salamanders, as potential carriers of these diseases. Both 
bullfrogs and non-native tiger salamanders occur within the range of 
the California tiger salamander (see Predation and Factor E below). 
However, we have no information to date indicating this is an imminent 
threat.
Predation
    Bullfrogs prey on California tiger salamanders (Anderson 1968; 
Lawler et al. 1999), which has created an overall pattern of the 
decline of this species in areas where bullfrogs and other exotic 
species are present (Fisher and Shaffer 1996). The bullfrog, native to 
North America east of the Great Plains, was introduced into California 
in the late-1800s and early-1900s, and it rapidly spread throughout the 
State (Storer 1925 as cited in Moyle 1973; Hayes and Jennings 1986). 
Morey and Guinn (1992) documented a shift in amphibian community 
composition at a vernal pool complex, with salamanders becoming 
proportionally less abundant as bullfrogs increased in number. 
Bullfrogs are unable to establish permanent breeding populations in 
unaltered vernal pools and seasonal ponds because they require more 
than one year to complete their aquatic larval stage. However, 
dispersing immature bullfrogs take up residence in such water bodies

[[Page 47234]]

during the winter and spring where they prey on native amphibians, 
including larval salamanders (Laabs et al. 2001; Morey and Guinn 1992; 
Seymour and Westphal 1994).
    Bullfrogs are known to travel at least 2.6 km (1.6 mi) from one 
pond to another (Bury and Whelan 1984), and they have the potential to 
naturally colonize new areas where they do not currently exist, 
including areas where Central California tiger salamanders occur. In 
one study of the eastern San Joaquin Valley, 22 of 23 ponds (96 
percent) with California tiger salamanders were within the bullfrogs' 
potential dispersal range (Seymour and Westphal 1994). In addition, 
because bullfrogs are still sought within California for sport and as 
food, and may be taken without limit under a fishing license (CDFG, 
2004 Sport Fishing Regulations), the threat of transport for 
intentional establishment in new habitat suitable for the Central 
California tiger salamanders is significant.
    Western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis) are native to central North 
America (watersheds tributary to the Gulf of Mexico) and have been 
introduced throughout the world for mosquito control; they were 
introduced in California, beginning in 1922. Western mosquitofish now 
occur throughout California wherever the water does not get too cold 
for extended periods, and they are still widely planted throughout the 
State (K. Boyce, Sacramento County/Yolo County Mosquito and Vector 
Control District, in litt. 1994; Moyle 2002) by about 50 local mosquito 
abatement districts. Western mosquitofish are ubiquitous because of 
their tolerance of poor water quality and wide temperature ranges (K. 
Boyce, in litt. 1994).
    Larval salamanders may be especially vulnerable to western 
mosquitofish predation due to their fluttering external gills, which 
may attract these visual predators (Graf and Allen-Diaz 1993). Loredo-
Prendeville et al. (1994) found no California tiger salamanders 
inhabiting ponds containing western mosquitofish. Leyse and Lawler 
(2000) found that the survival of California tiger salamander in 
experimental ponds stocked with western mosquitofish, at densities 
similar to those found in many stock ponds, was significantly reduced.
    Larvae that survived in ponds with western mosquitofish were 
smaller, took longer to reach metamorphosis, and had injuries such as 
shortened tails. Additionally, a recent experiment that replicated 
conditions in vernal pool environments and permanent ponds determined 
that, at low densities, mosquitofish did not have a significant effect 
on larval California tiger salamander growth and survival, but that 
growth and size at metamorphosis was significantly reduced at high fish 
densities (Leyse, in litt. 2003).
    Other non-native fish have either been directly implicated in 
predation of California tiger salamanders or appear to have the 
potential to prey upon them (Fisher and Shaffer 1996; Shaffer et al. 
1993). For example, introductions of sunfish species (e.g., largemouth 
bass (Micropterus salmoides), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus)), catfish 
(Ictalurus spp.), and fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) are 
believed to have eliminated California tiger salamanders from several 
breeding sites in Santa Barbara County (65 FR 3096). In eastern Merced 
County, California tiger salamanders were absent in stock ponds where 
non-native fish were present, whereas stock ponds absent of non-native 
fish had California tiger salamanders present (Laabs et al. 2001). Non-
native sunfish species, catfish, and bullheads (Ameiurus spp.) have 
been, and still are, widely planted in ponds in California to provide 
for sportfishing. By 1984, the California fish fauna included about 50 
such transplanted and exotic species, mostly of eastern North American 
origin (Hayes and Jennings 1986). The alien species have been 
introduced for a variety of reasons including ornamental, sport, bait, 
insect control and food uses. Thus, we consider introductions of such 
non-native fish species into Central California tiger salamander 
breeding habitat a threat to the persistence of the species in these 
locations.
    Detrimental effects of wild pigs on the Central California tiger 
salamander include both predation and habitat modifications.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    One primary cause of Central California tiger salamander decline is 
the loss, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat due to human 
activities. Federal, State, and local laws have been insufficient to 
prevent past and ongoing losses of the limited habitat of the Central 
California tiger salamander, and are unlikely to prevent further 
declines of the species.
Federal
    Clean Water Act. Pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act 
(CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) 
regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into all Waters of 
the United States, including wetlands. In general, the term ``wetland'' 
refers to areas meeting the Corps criteria of having hydric soils, 
hydrology (either a defined minimum duration of continuous inundation 
or saturation of soil during the growing season), and a plant community 
that is predominantly hydrophytic vegetation (plants specifically 
adapted for growing in a wetland environment).
    Any discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United 
States, including wetlands, requires a permit from the Corps. These 
include individual permits which would be issued following a review of 
an individual application, and general permits that authorize a 
category or categories of activities in a specific geographical 
location or nationwide (33 CFR parts 320-330). Individual permits are 
issued by the Corps for actions which are likely to result in greater 
than minimal individual or cumulative impacts to the human or aquatic 
environment. General permits are issued by the Corps for actions which 
are likely to result in minimal individual or cumulative impacts to the 
human or aquatic environment. It is important to note that in order for 
an applicant to utilize any general permit, including nationwide 
permits, the applicant must comply with the general and special 
conditions of the permit. General and special permit conditions may 
vary among individual Corps Districts and the various general permits. 
However, the use of any individual or general permit requires 
compliance with the Endangered Species Act. Some activities such as 
normal farming practices and the construction of forestry roads and 
temporary roads used for moving mining equipment are exempt under CWA 
and do not require a permit (33 U.S.C 1344)(f)(1).
    While the Clean Water Act provides a means for the Corps to 
regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters and 
wetlands of the United States, it does not provide complete protection. 
Nationwide the Corps denies less than one percent of all applications 
to discharge dredged or fill material into waters or wetlands on an 
annual basis. While many applicants are required to provide 
compensation for wetlands losses (i.e., no net loss), many smaller 
impact projects remain largely unmitigated unless specifically required 
by other environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act.
    Recent court cases limit the Corps' ability to utilize the CWA to 
regulate the discharge of fill or dredged material into the aquatic 
environment within the current range of the California tiger salamander 
(Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army

[[Page 47235]]

Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (SWANCC)). The effect of SWANCC 
on Federal regulation of activities in wetlands in the area of the 
California tiger salamander has recently become clear by the Corps' 
decision not to assert its jurisdiction over the discharge of fill 
material into several wetlands within the range of the California tiger 
salamander. In a letter from the Corps, dated March 8, 2002, concerning 
the discharge of fill into 0.18 ha (0.45 ac) of seasonal wetlands 
southwest of the intersection of Piner and Marlow Roads in Santa Rosa, 
California (Corps File Number 19736N), the Corps referenced the SWANCC 
decision and reiterated that the subject wetlands were not ``waters of 
the United States'' because they were not: (1) Navigable waters; (2) 
interstate waters; (3) part of a tributary system to 1 or 2; (4) 
wetlands adjacent to any of the foregoing; and (5) an impoundment of 
any of the above. The letter further stated that the interstate 
commerce nexus to these particular waters is insufficient to establish 
CWA jurisdiction, and therefore, the waters are not subject to 
regulation by the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA. There may be 
instances where seasonal wetlands used by California tiger salamander 
lack sufficient connection to waters of the United States for the Corps 
to assert jurisdiction under the authority of the Clean Water Act. For 
example, the Corps also cited the SWANCC decision as their reason for 
not taking jurisdiction over some seasonal wetlands located in Sonoma 
County, California, that are California tiger salamander habitat.
    We conclude that regulation of wetlands filling by the Corps under 
Section 404 of the CWA is inadequate to completely protect the Central 
California tiger salamander from further decline. Section 404 does not 
reach to isolated wetlands, and it does not regulate the continuing 
losses of the terrestrial habitat of the amphibian.
    Endangered Species Act. Within the range of the Central California 
tiger salamander there are currently 16 species (1 beetle, 4 species of 
vernal pool crustaceans, and 11 species of plants) listed under the Act 
that occur in association with seasonally-flooded vernal pools (45 FR 
62807; 59 FR 48136). The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora 
draytonii) is listed as threatened under the Act and is associated with 
stock ponds, stream drainages, and upland habitats located primarily in 
the Coastal Range, as well as portions of the foothills in the eastern 
Central Valley (61 FR 25813). The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis 
mutica) is listed as endangered under the Act and is associated with 
upland habitat in the San Joaquin Valley and parts of the Coastal Range 
(32 FR 4001). Critical habitat has been designated for the threatened 
delta green ground beetle (Elaphrus viridus) at Jepson Prairie in 
Solano County, but this unit covers only a portion of the area (less 
than 1 percent) that is inhabited by the California tiger salamander 
(45 FR 52807; Service 2004). We have also designated 740,000 million 
acres of critical habitat which includes upland areas in 30 California 
counties and one county in Oregon for four vernal pool shrimp and 11 
vernal pool plant species (68 FR 12336). However, due to life history 
of the California tiger salamander requiring additional upland areas 
outside those supporting the hydrology of the vernal pool or other pond 
the regulatory protections for vernal pool species are not adequate to 
protect the species.
    In the Central Valley region (Contra Costa, Mariposa, San Joaquin, 
Stanislaus, and Tuolumne Counties), South San Joaquin region (Fresno 
and Tulare Counties), Bay Area region (San Benito County), and Central 
Coast region (Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties), some vernal pools 
supporting the 16 listed vernal pool species ( i.e., the 15 listed 
above and delta green ground beetle), and the critical habitat 
designated for them, overlap with local occurrences of the Central 
California tiger salamander; however, such overlap is limited. 
Approximately 31,625 ha (78,144 ac, 8 percent) of Central California 
tiger salamander habitat occurred in areas designated as critical 
habitat for vernal pool species (Service 2004). Most of the 
requirements of the listed vernal pool plants and crustaceans can be 
met through maintenance of existing hydrology within the confines of 
individual vernal pool complexes (68 FR 12336). Vernal pool critical 
habitat does provide some protection to a limited area of uplands 
surrounding vernal pools for pollinator species and to protect other 
vernal pool functions. However, California tiger salamanders spend 
approximately 20 percent of their lives in vernal pools or ponds, and 
approximately 80 percent in the confines of small mammal burrows in 
upland areas, in addition to using upland areas as migratory corridors. 
Therefore, the protection provided to the listed vernal pool species 
and their critical habitats provides only partial protection to 
California tiger salamander upland habitat and movement corridor 
requirements because listed vernal pool species require substantially 
less upland habitat than salamanders and the resulting overlap with 
designated vernal pool species' critical habitat is limited.
    The threatened California red-legged frog requires dense, shrubby 
or emergent riparian vegetation closely associated with deep still or 
slow moving water, including stock ponds, for breeding habitat (Hayes 
and Jennings 1998; 61 FR 25813). They also utilize upland areas to 
migrate between aquatic habitats which they may use as refugia during 
summer months if aquatic habitats are no longer available in a specific 
area (Jennings and Hayes 1994; Service 2002).
    There are approximately 133,960 ha (331,010 ac, or 35 percent) of 
Central California tiger salamander habitat that occurs within 3.2 km 
(2 mi) of all California red-legged frog records in CNDDB (Service 
2004). We used 3.2 km (2 mi) as a distance from California red-legged 
frog records because this is the maximum known dispersal distance of 
the species (Service 2002). Using this distance surrounding records 
provided us with an estimate of California red-legged frog habitat that 
overlapped with salamander habitat. Although some regulatory 
protections may be afforded to the Central California tiger salamander 
from the California red-legged frog, these protections do not fully 
protect the salamander because geographic overlap between the two 
species is limited.
    Approximately 45 percent of the habitat for the Central California 
tiger salamander is located in the San Joaquin Valley and southern 
Sacramento Valley where California red-legged frogs no longer persist 
(Service 2004). California red-legged frogs likely were extirpated from 
the San Joaquin Valley floor before 1960; the last breeding population 
on the San Joaquin Valley floor was observed in 1947, and sighting of 
the species in that area last occurred in 1957 (Jennings et al., in 
litt. 1992; Service 1996). In the Coastal Range where both species are 
still present, California tiger salamanders and California red-legged 
frogs may coexist in the same breeding ponds. Thirty-nine percent of 
the 61 California tiger salamander breeding ponds in the EBRPD located 
in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties had California red-legged frogs 
present. Of these ponds where coexistence between the two species 
occurred, only 29 percent of the ponds had breeding populations of 
California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs. The 
remaining ponds had larval salamanders and adult California red-legged 
frogs (S. Bobzien, in litt. 2003). The EBRPD information shows that, 
while California tiger salamanders and California red-

[[Page 47236]]

legged frogs may occur in the same geographic area, their use of 
habitat within those areas may differ.
    In the northern portion of the range of the endangered San Joaquin 
kit fox, there is the potential for overlap with the upland habitat of 
the California tiger salamander because both species inhabit grassland. 
San Joaquin kit fox habitat overlaps with approximately 133,635 ha 
(330,209 ac, 35 percent) of the Central California tiger salamander 
habitat (Service 2004). Where the two species inhabit the same area, 
the regulatory protections afforded under the Act for the San Joaquin 
kit fox provide limited protection to Central California tiger 
salamander breeding habitats. Protected lands for San Joaquin kit fox 
may incidentally protect California tiger salamanders because San 
Joaquin kit fox depend on grassland with small mammal burrows for dens 
(Service 1998). Additionally, the fox preys on the mammals that create 
these burrows, which may be utilized by California tiger salamanders as 
upland habitat.
    There are three approved habitat conservation plans (HCP) that 
cover the California tiger salamander. The Natomas Basin HCP provides 
coverage for the Central California tiger salamander, although these 
animals have not been documented in the HCP planning area (Service 
files; CNDDB 2003). California tiger salamander preserves will be 
created by the Natomas HCP if the species is detected during surveys 
and impacted by covered activities. The Kern Water Bank HCP provides 
coverage for the California tiger salamander, although no documented 
occurrences have been observed in the project area; consequently the 
conservation strategy for this HCP targets other species known to occur 
in the project area (Service files). The California tiger salamander is 
a covered species in the San Joaquin County Multi-Species Habitat 
Conservation and Open Space Plan (SJMSCP). To qualify as a covered 
species, the plan must address the unlisted species as though it were 
listed. The SJMSCP will provide habitat preserves totaling 2,592 ha 
(6,406 ac) for the Central California tiger salamander as a result of 
the 708 ha (1,749 ac) of converted habitat from SJMSCP covered 
activities, primarily those associated with urban development. 
Agricultural activities (conversion of natural or agricultural lands to 
intensive agriculture) however, are not covered activities in the 
SJMSCP.and may result in the loss of California tiger salamander 
habitat. California tiger salamander habitat loss from agricultural 
activities is discussed in Factor A.
State
    Since 1994, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has 
designated the California tiger salamander as a ``species of special 
concern.'' More recently, the California tiger salamander has been 
placed on the State's list of protected amphibians, which means that it 
cannot be taken without a special permit issued for scientific 
collecting or research. In addition, such a designation provides for 
special protections and considerations under the California 
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code 
section 21000-21177). Also, as stated earlier in Factor C, the 
California Code of Regulations (2002) specifies California tiger 
salamanders can no longer be taken, possessed, or used for fishing 
bait.
    On July 6, 2001, the CDFG received a petition from the CBD to list 
the California tiger salamander under the California Endangered Species 
Act. The status of the animal and potential threats were evaluated by 
the CDFG. On October 3, 2001, the Director of the CDFG recommended to 
the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) that they accept 
the petition and designate the animal as a candidate (R. Hight, CDFG, 
in litt. 2001). On December 7, 2001, the Commission found that the 
petition was not warranted because the Commissioners felt there was not 
enough information on the population abundance and trend information of 
the California tiger salamander (R. Treanor, Commission, in litt. 
2001).
    CDFG recognizes the importance of California tiger salamander 
conservation at the local population level and routinely considers and 
recommends actions to mitigate potential adverse effects to the species 
during its review of development proposals. However, CDFG's primary 
regulatory venue is under CEQA.
    CEQA requires disclosure of potential environmental impacts ofall 
discretionary activities proposed to be carried out or approved by all 
state or local government agencies in California, unless an exemption 
applies. Under CEQA, a significant effect on the environment means ``a 
substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse effect on the 
environment'' (California Public Resources Code section 21068). Any 
project that affects a protected species results in a mandatory finding 
of significant effect and all the mitigation requirements appurtenant. 
The lead agency must then mitigate for unavoidable significant effects 
or, in rare circumstances and under specified conditions, the lead 
agency can make a determination that overriding considerations make 
such mitigation infeasible (California Public Resources Code section 
21002) and may then provide for other mitigation. CEQA can provide 
protections for a species that, although not listed as threatened or 
endangered, meets one of several criteria for rarity (14 California 
Code of Regulations section 15380).
    Because of State environmental laws such as CEQA, planned 
development often provides avoidance, minimization, and mitigation 
measures which are specifically for, or which may incidentally benefit, 
California tiger salamander, as a result of conformance with local land 
use plans for providing open space, through working with the California 
Department of Fish and Game under the authority CEQA. The avoidance, 
minimization, and mitigation measures of individual projects 
nevertheless tend to result in fragmented landscapes and a trend of 
cumulative regional habitat loss and fragmentation. Mitigation does not 
create new land, it simply balances land converted with land protected 
for natural values, so even with mitigation, a net loss of habitat 
results. So while mitigation provided by developments under CEQA may be 
offered with the intent to benefit California tiger salamander, the 
resulting fragmentation of regional landscapes over time creates high 
risk of disrupting or precluding migration patters, isolating small 
local populations, and subjecting animals to higher risks from road 
crossing mortality during migration and other risks associated with 
urban preserves. The threats to California tiger salamander associated 
with habitat fragmentation are discussed more fully in Factor A.
    Neither CEQA nor other statutory mechanisms under CDFG's 
jurisdiction serves as an effective regulatory mechanism for reducing 
or eliminating several of the other manmade factors (see Factor C 
above) which may also adversely affect California tiger salamanders and 
their habitat. These factors include stocking ponds with non-native 
fish for recreational fishing and mosquito control. Agencies and 
individuals may purchase (from CDFG-licensed fish breeders) and stock 
into such waters sunfish, catfish, and other non-native fish for 
recreational fishing. Similarly, there is no State regulation of 
western mosquitofish stocking into stock ponds and waters inhabited by 
California tiger salamanders by the approximately 50 mosquito abatement 
districts that routinely stock this

[[Page 47237]]

mosquito predator as a means for mosquito control. As a result, 
California tiger salamanders suffer predation pressure in such 
environments and may be eliminated from ponds stocked with predatory 
fish (see Factor C above and E below). In addition, conversion of 
rangeland to intensive agriculture is not regulated by City or County 
government and is not subject to CEQA.
    Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code 
authorizes the CDFG to regulate streambed alteration. CDFG must be 
notified of and approve any work that substantially diverts, alters, or 
obstructs the natural flow or substantially changes the bed, channel, 
or banks of any river, stream, or lake. If an existing fish or wildlife 
resource may be substantially adversely affected by a noticed project, 
CDFG must identify and submit measures to protect the fish and wildlife 
resources within 60 days to the project proponent (Section 1602 of CDFG 
Code). However, if CDFG does not respond within 60 days of 
notification, the applicant may proceed with the work. Section 1600 
does not provide protection to upland habitat beyond the bank of the 
affected waterway (see discussion under CWA and its limitations above), 
and does not regulate stock ponds that are not constructed on natural 
streams or vernal pools, which are the breeding habitats for the 
species. Mitigation under a streambed alteration agreement is entirely 
voluntary by a project applicant and is typically agreed upon only when 
compatible with mitigation required by another permit (J. Gan, CDFG, 
pers. comm. 2004).
    The 2002 California Code of Regulations specifies that no 
salamander may be used as bait and excludes the California tiger 
salamander from a list of salamanders, newts, toads, and frogs that may 
legally be taken and possessed under authority of a sport fishing 
license.
    The California Porter-Cologne Act of 1969 (California Water Code 
section 13000 et seq.) is the primary law regulating water quality in 
California. The Porter-Cologne Act designated the State Water Resources 
Control Board and the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards to 
serve as California's water quality planning agencies with authority 
over surface and groundwater quality. The State Water Resources Board 
develops a State Water Quality Control Plan, while the nine Regional 
Water Quality Control Boards develop Regional Water Quality Control 
Plans and issue waste discharge requirements (permits).
    As part of surface and groundwater quality planning, the Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne) regulates the 
discharge of fill into wetlands and other water bodies and to areas 
where it could impact those waters (California Water Code section 13260 
et seq.). If the Corps has jurisdictional authority over waters under 
the CWA section 404, and a project applicant requires a Corps permit 
for work in those waters, then that project applicant must also obtain 
Water Quality Certification from its local Regional Water Quality 
Control Board (Water Board), pursuant to section 401 of the CWA, that 
its project will not violate State water quality standards (33 U.S.C. 
1341). If the Corps does not have jurisdictional authority, then a 
project applicant may require a permit under Porter-Cologne. State 
jurisdiction over waters under Porter-Cologne can be much greater than 
federal jurisdiction under the CWA. However, the Water Boards generally 
regulate the fill of State waters where fill occurs within waters that 
would normally fall under Corps regulation, but have been excluded due 
to various reasons (e.g., the Supreme Court's SWANCC and Tulloch Rule 
decisions). We believe that Porter-Cologne has the same shortcomings as 
the Clean Water Act as a regulatory mechanism that effectively protect 
California tiger salamander, that is, it provides State authority to 
regulate, and therefore protect, when deemed appropriate, wetlands, but 
does not provide authority to substantially regulate surrounding 
uplands that also may be essential to wetland dependent organisms such 
as the California tiger salamander.
Local
    We are not aware of any specific county or city ordinances or 
regulations that provide direct protection for the California tiger 
salamander. The California tiger salamander may be indirectly 
benefiting from the increased attention being given to conversions of 
grasslands, oak woodlands, row-crops, and other agricultural uses to 
vineyards and orchards. Although some counties have begun regulating 
such conversions, counties within the Central California tiger 
salamander's range do not regulate conversions to vineyards and 
orchards. Such conversion has significant potential to adversely affect 
the Central California tiger salamander. The California tiger 
salamander may also directly and indirectly benefit through some city 
and county open space designations that coincide with salamanders and 
their habitats or mitigation plans for special status species that have 
been developed as part of their general plans.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Several other factors may threaten California tiger salamanders. 
These factors include exposure to various contaminants, rodent 
population control efforts, mosquito control, direct mortality while 
they are crossing roads, the species' hybridization with non-native 
tiger salamanders and future hybridization that is likely to occur, and 
certain practices associated with livestock grazing.
Contaminants
    Little research has been done on the effects of contaminants to the 
California tiger salamander, especially with respect to agricultural 
pesticides. This section uses currently available salamander data and 
surrogate species data as the best available science. Most 
toxicological studies to date have been conducted on other amphibian 
species, in particular Anuran species (frogs and toads). These studies 
however provide insight to the potential risks of contaminants to the 
California tiger salamander.
    Like most amphibians, California tiger salamanders inhabit both 
aquatic and terrestrial habitats during different stages of their life 
cycle and may be exposed to a variety of pesticides and other chemicals 
throughout their range. Due to their permeable skin, amphibians may be 
particularly vulnerable to environmental stressors such as pesticides 
(Blaustein and Wake 1990). Toxicants do not have to be present at 
lethal levels to be harmful. Toxicants at sublethal levels may still 
cause adverse effects such as developmental abnormalities in larvae and 
behavioral anomalies in adults, which can be deleterious to the exposed 
individuals (Hall and Henry 1992; Blaustein and Johnson 2003). Sources 
of chemical pollution which may adversely affect California tiger 
salamanders include pesticides used in agricultural, landscaping, 
roadside maintenance, and rodent and vector control activities, as well 
as hydrocarbons and other pollutants in stormwater runoff residential 
and urban lawn and garden care as well as industrial facilities.
Rodent Control
    California tiger salamanders spend much of their lives in 
underground retreats, often in burrowing mammal (ground squirrel, 
pocket gopher, and other burrowing mammal) burrows (Loredo et al. 1996; 
Trenham 1998a, D. Cook, pers comm. 2001). Therefore,

[[Page 47238]]

widespread burrowing mammal control may pose threats to the salamander. 
California burrowing mammal control, which began in the early 1900s 
(Marsh 1987), may be done by trapping, shooting, fumigation of burrows, 
use of toxic (including anticoagulant) baits, and habitat modification, 
including deep-ripping of burrow areas (UC IPM internet Web site 2004).
    Burrowing mammal control programs are widely conducted (frequently 
via bait stations placed at specific problem sites) on and around 
various commercial agricultural operations, including grazing/range 
lands and various cropland including vineyards (R. Thompson, Science 
Applications International Corporation in litt. 1998). Also, agencies, 
particularly flood control agencies and levee districts, conduct 
extensive California ground squirrel control programs around levees, 
canals, and other facilities they manage (Knell in litt. 2003). Pocket 
gopher control typically is most common around golf courses and other 
large, landscaped areas, and around residential homes and gardens.
    Two of the most commonly used rodenticides, chlorophacinone and 
diphacinone, are anticoagulants that cause animals to bleed to death. 
These chemicals can be absorbed through the skin and are considered 
toxic to fish and wildlife (EPA 1985; EXOTONET 1996). These two 
chemicals, along with strychnine, are used to control rodents (R. 
Thompson, in litt. 1998). Although the effects of these poisons on 
California tiger salamander have not been assessed, any uses in close 
proximity to occupied Central California tiger salamander habitat may 
have various direct and indirect toxic effects. Gases, including 
aluminum phosphide, carbon monoxide, and methyl bromide, are used in 
rodent fumigation operations and are introduced into burrows by either 
using cartridges or by pumping. When such fumigants are used, most or 
all animals inhabiting the fumigated burrow are killed (Salmon and 
Schmidt 1984).
    In addition to possible direct adverse effects of rodent control 
chemicals and gasses, California ground squirrel and pocket gopher 
control operations may have the indirect effect of reducing the number 
of upland burrows available to specific California tiger salamanders 
(Loredo-Prendeville et al. 1994). Because the burrow density required 
by California tiger salamanders is unknown, the impacts of less than 
total burrow loss are also unknown.
    Active California ground squirrel colonies probably are needed to 
sustain California tiger salamanders, because inactive burrow systems 
become progressively unsuitable over time. Loredo et al. (1996) found 
that burrow systems usually collapsed within 18 months following 
cessation of California ground squirrel use, and did not report 
California tiger salamanders utilizing any collapsed burrows.
Mosquito Control
    In addition to the use of western mosquitofish (see Factor C 
above), a common chemical method of mosquito control in California 
involves the use of methoprene. Methoprene is an insect hormone mimic 
which increases the level of juvenile hormone in insect larvae and 
disrupts the molting process. Lawrenz (1984, 1985) found that 
methoprene (Altosoid SR-10) retarded the development of selected 
crustacea that had the same molting hormones (i.e., juvenile hormone) 
as insects, and anticipated that the same hormone may control 
metamorphosis in other arthropods. Because the success of many aquatic 
vertebrates relies on an abundance of invertebrates in temporary 
wetlands, any delay in insect growth could reduce the numbers and 
density of prey available (Lawrenz 1984, 1985). The use of methoprene 
could have an indirect adverse effect on California tiger salamanders 
by reducing the availability of prey.
Road-Crossing Mortality
    Although no systematic studies of road mortality of the California 
tiger salamander have been conducted, we know that salamanders are 
killed by vehicular traffic while crossing roads (Hansen and Tremper 
1993; S. Sweet, in litt. 1993; Joe Medeiros, Sierra College, pers. 
comm. 1993). For example, during one 15-day period in 2001 at a Sonoma 
County location, 26 road-killed California tiger salamanders were found 
(D. Cook, pers. comm. 2002). Loss of salamanders to vehicular-caused 
mortality in the vicinity of breeding sites can range from 25 to 72 
percent of the observed salamanders crossing roads (Twitty 1941; S. 
Sweet, in litt. 1993; Launer and Fee l996). Mortality may be increased 
by associated roadway curbs and berms as low as 9 to 12 centimeters (3 
to 5 in), which allow California tiger salamanders access to roadways 
but prevent their exit from them (Launer and Fee 1996; S. Sweet, in 
litt. 1998).
    Vehicular usage on California roads is increasing rapidly and 
directly with human population growth and urban expansion. During 
November 2002, California's estimated total vehicular travel on State 
highway system roads alone was 23 billion km (14.27 billion mi) (this 
figure and subsequent vehicular-use data from California Department of 
Transportation's internet website 2003). From 1972 to 2001, the State 
highway system total vehicular usage rose steadily from 108.6 km to 270 
billion km (67.1 to 167.8 billion mi) annually. For the California 
Counties in which the Central California tiger salamander may occur, 
State highway system total annual vehicular usage in 1999, 2000, and 
2001 was 86.0, 90.0, and 92.1 billion km (53.3, 55.9, and 57.2 billion 
mi), respectively. Moreover, in those areas of the State in which the 
Central California tiger salamander occurs, road densities due to past 
urbanization are already high. Overall, these areas have 5,860.2 km 
(3,641.5 mi) of roads (and rail tracks) of all types. The range of 
current road (and rail) density is from 1.01 km per 100 ha (0.25 mi per 
100 ac) in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, to 1.64 km per 100 ha (0.41 
mi per 100 ac) in San Francisco Bay Area counties. We believe such 
relatively high road-use and road-density values make road-kill 
mortality a threat to the species, a threat that is likely continuing 
to grow in concert with the State's rapid growth of human population 
and urbanization.
Hybridization With Non-native Salamanders
    Hybridization has been defined by Rhymer and Simberloff (1996) as 
``interbreeding of individuals from what are believed to be genetically 
distinct populations, regardless of taxonomic status.'' Hybridization 
between species may lead to introgression, which occurs when hybrid 
individuals repeatedly backcross to one or both parental types so that 
genetic material is transferred between the two species. Natural 
hybridization can be an important component of evolutionary processes. 
However, hybridization and introgression can be cause for concern, 
particularly if they are the result of human activities such as the 
introduction of non-native taxa. In the extreme, hybridization between 
native and non-native taxa can lead to loss of the native taxon through 
``genetic assimilation'' (Rhymer and Simberloff 1996, Allendorf et al. 
2001). Hybridization has been implicated in the extinction of 
populations and species of many animal and plant taxa (Rhymer and 
Simberloff 1996, Allendorf et al. 2001), including Tecopa pupfish 
(Cyprinodon nevadensis calidae), Amistad gambusia (Gambusia 
amistadensis), and longjaw cisco (Coregonus alpenae) (Rhymer and 
Simberloff 1996).
    We are concerned about the threat of genetic contamination and 
assimilation

[[Page 47239]]

of California tiger salamanders by non-native tiger salamanders. Non-
native tiger salamanders (Ambystoma tigrinum mavortium) were introduced 
into central California as bass bait in the mid-1900s (Riley et al. 
2003, Fitzpatrick and Shaffer in review). Two studies (Riley et al. 
2003, Fitzpatrick and Shaffer in review) have dealt with hybridization 
between these two species relative to habitat types commonly used by 
the species. The authors identified diagnostic genetic markers from 
mtDNA and nuclear DNA (i.e., markers that distinguish between A. 
tigrinum and California tiger salamander). These markers were used to 
study the course of hybridization between these species in various 
situations.
    Riley et al. (2003) examined hybridization between California tiger 
salamanders and non-native tiger salamanders at a study site in 
Monterey County. They found clear evidence that the two species are 
interbreeding in the wild and that they are producing viable and 
fertile hybrid offspring. The authors suggest, however, that the extent 
of genetic mixing depends on the breeding habitat, with pure California 
tiger salamanders more likely to occur in natural habitats than in 
artificial or disturbed ones. Vernal pools contained significantly 
fewer larvae with hybrid genotypes (genetic composition) and 
significantly more pure parental genotypes than expected. In contrast, 
there was little evidence of barriers to gene exchange in artificial 
breeding ponds. Since many available breeding ponds are artificial or 
highly modified, the authors believe that barriers preventing genetic 
exchange in natural breeding ponds are unlikely by themselves to 
prevent merging of the two taxa. This result indicates that concern 
about contamination, and possibly assimilation, of California tiger 
salamanders by non-native salamanders is not unfounded because barriers 
which might prevent genetic exchange do not appear absolute, 
particularly in artificial or highly modified habitats.
    Fitzpatrick and Shaffer (in review) further analyzed the 
frequencies of hybrid genotypes in breeding habitats, focusing on 
natural vernal pools, ephemeral man-made cattle pools and perennial 
man-made ponds. They found that perennial ponds contained a 
preponderance of non-native alleles (alternative forms of a gene). They 
suggested that this may be because A. tigrinum (1) has a more flexible 
breeding phenology than California tiger salamander (and therefore, can 
take advantage of perennial ponds by breeding earlier in the fall) and 
(2) exhibits facultative paedomorphosis (retention of larval 
characteristics as an adult). These two characteristics of A. tigrinum 
may increase the relative ability of non-native alleles to persist in 
perennial ponds.
    Riley et al. (2003) and Fitzpatrick and Shaffer (in review) show 
that the extent of hybridization between A. tigrinum and California 
tiger salamander may depend on the breeding habitat used (i.e., 
artificial and highly modified habitats may facilitate hybridization) 
and that, in at least some circumstances (e.g., where there are 
perennial ponds), non-native genes may be more likely to persist than 
native genes.
    Using mtDNA and nuclear DNA markers as described above, researchers 
have examined the geographic extent of hybridization between A. 
tigrinum and California tiger salamander (Shaffer and Trenham 2002, 
H.B. Shaffer in litt. 2003). Hybridization has been found to varying 
degrees in the Central Coast, Bay Area, and the Central Valley portions 
of the California tiger salamander's range (Shaffer and Trenham 2002, 
H.B. Shaffer in litt. 2003, Service 2004). Of particular concern is the 
widespread hybridization within the Central Coast. Introduced genes 
have been found from southern Santa Clara County throughout most of 
Monterey County down to Fort Hunter Liggett on the San Luis Obispo 
County line, and east across all of San Benito County where California 
tiger salamanders occur (H.B. Shaffer in litt. 2003). We believe 
hybridization is a serious threat in the Central Coast region of 
California tiger salamander. Within this region, virtually all Monterey 
County populations of the California tiger salamander have been 
compromised by non-native genes, and every population of the California 
tiger salamander at Fort Hunter Liggett is either introduced or a 
hybrid mixture (H.B. Shaffer in litt. 2003).
    Also of concern is the advancement of hybrid genes observed over 
the last decade. Salamander tissues collected ten or more years ago at 
the former Fort Ord and in the upper Carmel Valley were all pure 
California tiger salamander. However, material collected in May, 2003, 
at the former Fort Ord, and two years ago in the Carmel Valley 
contained introduced genes, suggesting that introduced genes are moving 
into new areas. In addition, introduced genes were recently detected 
from material collected in eastern Merced County, suggesting that 
human-mediated movement of introduced salamanders may still be 
occurring (Shaffer in litt. 2003). These changes in the distribution of 
hybridization indicate that the threat from hybridization is likely to 
increase in the future.
    Using GIS, we estimated the number of Central California tiger 
salamander records (presumably California tiger salamanders without 
non-native genes present) that were threatened by hybridization 
(Service 2004). We considered a California tiger salamander record 
threatened by hybridization if the record was within 2.1 km (1.3 mi) of 
a hybridized or nonnative tiger salamander observation. Locations of 
hybridized or non-native tiger salamander locations were provided by 
Dr. H. Bradley Shaffer of University of California at Davis. Other 
records also were considered threatened if they were part of a larger 
polygon that consisted of multiple records (see Service Analysis of 
Central California Tiger Salamander Habitat above), located within 2.1 
km (1.3 mi) of a hybridized or nonnative tiger salamander observation. 
Our assumptions were that if a nonnative or hybridized tiger salamander 
was within 2.1 km (1.3 mi) (based on the maximum observed migration 
distance of a tiger salamander, Sweet in litt. 1998) of a California 
tiger salamander record, then the nonnative or hybridized tiger 
salamander would be able to migrate to the pure salamander breeding 
site and breed with the California tiger salamanders at that location. 
Additionally, if the non-native or hybrid was located within 2.1 km 
(1.3 mi) of a polygon consisting of multiple records, then there would 
be sufficient intervening breeding habitat located within the polygon 
to allow for the nonnative or hybrid tiger salamanders to migrate to 
and breed with the California tiger salamander records within the 
polygon.
    Using this analysis, we determined that 48 records (22 percent) in 
the Bay Area region, 56 records (78 percent) in the Central Coast 
region, and 27 records (8 percent) in the Central Valley region were 
threatened by hybridization because of their close proximity to 
nonnative and hybridized tiger salamanders (Service 2004).
    Nonnative salamanders are not known to occur within the range of 
the California tiger salamander in Sonoma County. In Santa Barbara 
County, nonnative tiger salamanders are known from the Lompoc Federal 
Penitentiary. The closest known California tiger salamander breeding 
pond is approximately 8 mi (12.9 km) from the Penitentiary.
    In summary, we believe that the available information indicates 
that the California tiger salamander is at risk from genetic 
contamination, and possibly genetic assimilation. The

[[Page 47240]]

course of hybridization and introgression appears particularly 
aggressive in artificial and highly modified habitats and perennial 
ponds (Riley et al. 2003, Fitzpatrick and Shaffer in review). Evidence 
of hybridization has been found in three geographic areas (i.e., 
Central Coast, Bay Area and Central Valley) within the Central 
California tiger salamander's range (Shaffer and Trenham 2002, Shaffer 
in litt. 2003, Service 2004). In areas where hybrid individuals are 
already prevalent, such as the Central Coast, we believe it is not 
unreasonable to consider that the California tiger salamander portion 
of the genome may be reduced and could even be lost entirely.
Livestock Grazing
    Suitably managed livestock (cattle, sheep, and horses) ranch land 
is generally thought to be compatible in many cases with the successful 
use of rangelands by the California tiger salamander (T. Jones, in 
litt. 1993; Shaffer et al. 1993; Loredo et al. 1996; S. Sweet, pers. 
comm. 1998; H. B. Shaffer and P. Trenham, pers. comm. 2003; Alveraz in 
litt. 2003; Barry in litt. 2003; Bobzien in litt. 2003; Kolar in litt. 
2003). By maintaining shorter vegetation, grazing may make areas more 
suitable for California ground squirrels whose burrows are essential to 
California tiger salamanders.
    The long-term effect of ranching on the species is either neutral 
or beneficial, as long as burrowing rodents are not completely 
eradicated, because the California tiger salamander would have likely 
been extirpated from many areas if stock ponds had not been built and 
maintained for livestock production (see also Special Rule below.)
Conclusion
    As discussed in the Summary of Factors Affecting the Species above, 
we have identified a number of threats to the California tiger 
salamander. In earlier actions we listed the Santa Barbara and Sonoma 
County DPSs of the species and identified the threats to those 
populations. Here we identify threats to the Central population of the 
species as well as re-evaluate the threats to the Santa Barbara and 
Sonoma populations and conclude that the California tiger salamander is 
threatened throughout its range. The primary threats throughout the 
range are habitat destruction, degradation, and fragmentation due to 
urbanization and conversion of habitat to intensive agriculture. Other 
circumstances that contribute to threatening the species include 
hybridization with non-native tiger salamanders and predation from non-
native species.
    While the California tiger salamander still occurs throughout much 
of its historic range (Trenham et al. 2000), researchers estimate that 
approximately 75 percent of the species' historic natural habitat has 
been lost within this range (Shaffer et al. 1993; see Factor A below). 
For example, loss of vernal pool habitat, the natural breeding habitat 
of California tiger salamanders, had reached 78 percent by 1997 
(Holland 1998a, 1998b; CDFG 2003) and, at a continued 1.5 percent 
annual loss (the rate of loss during the 1980s and 1990s), is projected 
to reach 88 percent by 2043 (Holland 1998a). The Central California 
tiger salamander has been able to persist despite these losses, 
probably because of the presence of artificial water bodies, such as 
stockponds. Although the current range of the California tiger 
salamander approximates its historic range in size, the quality, 
connectivity and distribution of the habitat within the range has been 
substantially altered and degraded.
    The past habitat loss, alteration, and degradation, along with 
projected future losses and further degradation, is the primary factor 
in our determination that the California tiger salamander meets the 
definition of threatened under the Act. Urban and agricultural land 
uses have destroyed, degraded, and altered both aquatic breeding 
habitat and upland estivation and dispersal habitat of the salamander, 
and we have reason to believe these impacts will continue in the 
future. Between 1990 and 2000 human population growth in the counties 
inhabited by California tiger salamander increased by almost 20 
percent, is projected to increase by 35 percent between 2000 and 2020, 
and by 75 percent between 2000 and 2040 (CDF 1998, 2002). Although 
current data from general plans and other planned development 
incorporate planning over a limited time horizon (many general plans 
only project out to 2020), our analysis suggests that eight percent of 
the remaining California tiger salamander habitat will be lost in the 
future to such activities. Because of the limited time horizon 
associated with these data, and because planning for development, and 
development itself, is a dynamic process, we believe that eight percent 
is an underestimate of the likely loss of habitat to high-intensity 
development. Our data also suggest that an additional 18 percent of 
remaining Central California tiger salamander habitat is threatened by 
low- and very-low-density development. In addition, habitat proximate 
to developed areas is subject to degradation and fragmentation from 
human uses, including increased size and number of roads. Of the four 
geographic areas in the Central California population identified by 
Shaffer and Trenham (2002), the South San Joaquin area is the most 
threatened, with 14 percent of the remaining habitat projected to be 
lost to planned development and 35 percent threatened by low- and very-
low-density development. In addition, we believe conversion of 
rangeland to intensive agriculture, though difficult to quantify, will 
result in a substantial loss of Central California tiger salamander 
habitat in the future.
    In sum, we conclude that 75 percent of California tiger salamander 
habitat has already been lost and that at least 26 percent of the 
remaining habitat of the Central California tiger salamander is under 
threat from urban development and low- and very-low-density residential 
development. Additional habitat will also be lost as rangeland is 
converted to intensive agriculture.
    Additionally, the Central California tiger salamander is at great 
risk from genetic contamination, and possibly genetic assimilation. 
Hybridization and introgression appear more likely in artificial and 
highly modified habitats and perennial ponds (Riley et al. 2003, 
Fitzpatrick and Shaffer in review). Hybridization has been found to 
varying degrees in the Central Coast, Bay Area, and the Central Valley 
regions of California tiger salamander (Shaffer and Trenham 2002, H.B. 
Shaffer in litt. 2003, Service 2004). Of particular concern is the 
widespread hybridization within the Central Coast. In areas where 
hybrid individuals are already prevalent, such as the Central Coast 
region, we believe it is not unreasonable to expect that the California 
tiger salamander portion of the genome may continue to be reduced.
    A number of non-native California species, especially bullfrogs, 
western mosquitofish, and other non-native fish, may be adversely 
affecting the California tiger salamander through predation (Fisher and 
Shaffer 1996, Factor C). The data suggest that when these non-natives 
are present, California tiger salamanders and/or other native 
amphibians are either less abundant or completely absent (Shaffer et 
al. 1993; Loredo-Prendeville et al. 1994; Seymour and Westphal 1994; 
Laabs et al. 2001). Other non-native fish have either been directly 
implicated in predation of California tiger salamanders or appear to 
have the potential to prey upon them (Fisher and Shaffer 1996).
    Our analysis indicates that, while existing Federal, State, or 
local regulatory mechanisms currently offset some of the various 
threats to California

[[Page 47241]]

tiger salamander, the protections are insufficient.
    The Act defines an endangered species as one that is in danger of 
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The 
Act defines a threatened species as any species likely to become 
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. In making this determination, we have 
carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial data available 
regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by the California 
tiger salamander. Based on this evaluation, we are listing the 
California tiger salamander as a threatened species, as it is likely to 
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range.
    Having determined that the California tiger salamander is 
threatened rangewide, we turn to the issue of the status of the Santa 
Barbara, Sonoma, and Central California populations. Our analysis of 
the status of the species rangewide has shed additional light on the 
status of the Santa Barbara and Sonoma County populations. In addition, 
once the Santa Barbara population was listed, the number of existing 
populations in Santa Barbara increased as efforts to locate the species 
increased. We now conclude that neither of these populations is 
currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range. However, like the species as a whole, these 
populations are subject to a significant threat of additional habitat 
loss and fragmentation, as well as other secondary threats. Given their 
smaller ranges and populations, the Santa Barbara and Sonoma County 
populations remain at higher risk than the species as a whole, which as 
discussed above, we have determined is threatened. Similarly, we have 
determined that the Santa Barbara and Sonoma County populations are 
likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, and are also 
threatened. Having determined that the Santa Barbara and Sonoma 
populations have the same listing status as the taxon as a whole, we 
are removing these populations as separately listed DPSs.
Special Rule
    Section 4(d) of the Act imparts the authority to issue regulations 
necessary and advisable to provide for the conservation of threatened 
species. Under section 4(d), the Secretary may publish a special rule 
that modifies the standard protections for threatened species found 
under section 9 of the Act and Service regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 with 
special measures tailored to the conservation of the species. We 
believe that, in certain instances, easing the general take 
prohibitions on non-Federal lands may encourage continued responsible 
land uses that provide an overall benefit to the species. We also 
believe that such a special rule will promote the conservation efforts 
and private lands partnerships critical for species recovery (Bean, 
2002; Conner and Matthews, 2002; Crouse et al., 2002; James, 2002; 
Knight, 1999; Koch, 2002; Main et al., 1999; Norton, 2000; Wilcove et 
al., 1996). However, in easing the take prohibitions under section 9, 
the measures developed in the special rule must also contain 
prohibitions necessary and appropriate to conserve the species.
    As discussed elsewhere in this final rule, the California tiger 
salamander faces many threats. Foremost among these is the continuing 
loss of California's vernal pool habitats. Historically, California's 
vernal pools served as the predominant breeding habitat for the 
California tiger salamander and were essential components for the 
species' stability throughout its range (Storer 1925; Feaver 1971; 
Zeiner et al. 1988; Shaffer et al. 1993; Jennings and Hayes 1994; 
Thelander 1994). With the loss of these natural habitats during the 
last century, alternative breeding sites have become more critical for 
the continued survival of the California tiger salamander.
    Stock ponds created for livestock ranching are important 
alternative breeding sites for the California tiger salamander, as 
evidenced by the substantial number of salamander locality records from 
these artificial habitats (CNDDB 2002). While various activities 
associated with livestock operations may result in inadvertent take of 
salamander adults, juveniles, or eggs, livestock ranching stock ponds 
with suitable adjacent upland habitat provide valuable refugia for the 
remaining California tiger salamander. Maintaining California tiger 
salamander use of stock ponds on livestock ranches for breeding appears 
to be a critical link in the conservation and recovery of this species. 
For this reason, we are today finalizing a special rule under section 
4(d) of the Act which would exempt routine livestock ranching 
activities on private or Tribal lands, where there is no Federal nexus, 
from the take prohibitions under section 9 of the Act. The special rule 
applies to those situations, whether currently existing or that may 
develop in the future, where livestock ranching is the primary land use 
or livelihood and where the routine activities are essential for the 
continued operation of the livestock ranch.
    Special rules developed under section 4(d) of the Act are published 
in the Federal Register concurrent or subsequent to the listing of a 
species. With the finalization of this special rule, the general 
regulations at 50 CFR 17.31 will not apply to the California tiger 
salamander. Our rationale behind the development of the special rule is 
discussed below.
    Livestock ranching is a dynamic process, which requires the ability 
to adapt to changing environmental and economic conditions. However, 
many of the activities essential to successful ranching are considered 
routine, and are undertaken at various times and places throughout the 
year as need dictates. Although this special rule is not intended to 
provide a comprehensive list of those ranching activities considered 
routine, some examples include: maintenance of stock ponds; fence 
construction for grazing management; planting, harvest, and rotation of 
unirrigated forage crops; maintenance and construction of corrals, 
ranch buildings, and roads; discing of field sections for fire 
prevention management; control of noxious weeds by prescribed fire or 
by herbicides; placement of mineral supplements; and rodent control.
    Routine activities associated with livestock ranching have the 
potential to affect California tiger salamander. Some routine 
activities have the potential to positively affect salamanders (e.g., 
creation of suitable stock pond breeding habitats), while other 
activities may be neutral with respect to salamander effects (e.g., 
construction of ranch buildings in areas unsuitable for salamander 
occupation). However, other routine ranching activities have the 
potential to negatively affect salamanders, depending on when and where 
the activities are conducted (e.g., direct take from discing and/or 
grading of salamander-occupied upland aestivation habitat).
    While section 9 of the Act provides general prohibitions on 
activities that would result in take of a threatened species, the 
Service recognizes that routine ranching activities, even those with 
the potential to inadvertently take salamanders, may be necessary 
components of livestock operations. The Service also recognizes that it 
is, in the long-term, a benefit to the California tiger salamander to 
maintain, as much as possible, those aspects of the ranching landscape 
that can aid in the recovery of the species. We believe this special 
rule will further conservation of the species by discouraging further

[[Page 47242]]

conversions of the ranching landscape into habitats unsuitable for the 
California tiger salamander and encouraging landowners and ranchers to 
continue managing the remaining landscape in ways that meet the needs 
of their operation and provide suitable habitat for the California 
tiger salamander.
Routine Livestock Ranching Activities Exempted by the Special Rule
    The activities mentioned above and discussed below are merely 
examples of routine ranching activities that would be exempted by the 
special rule, with the exception of use of burrow fumigants. Routine 
activities may vary from one ranching operation to another, and vary 
with changing environmental and economic conditions. Routine ranching 
activities include the activities described below, and any others that 
a rancher may undertake to maintain a sustainable ranching operation. 
Our premise for not attempting to regulate routine activities is that, 
ultimately, we believe that a rancher acting in the best interest of 
maintaining a sustainable ranching operation also is providing 
incidental but significant conservation benefits for the California 
tiger salamander.
    In this special rule, we describe and recommend best management 
practices for carrying out routine ranching activities in ways that 
would minimize take of salamanders, but we do not require these 
practices. Overall, we believe that minimizing the regulatory 
restrictions on routine ranching activities will increase the 
likelihood that more landowners will voluntarily allow salamanders to 
persist or increase on their private lands, and that the impacts to 
salamanders from such activities are far outweighed by the benefits of 
maintaining a rangeland landscape in which salamanders can co-exist 
with a ranching operation, as opposed to alternative land uses in which 
salamanders would be eliminated entirely. For reasons discussed below, 
we did not exempt rodent control by burrow fumigants. We have exempted 
other methods of rodent control and believe there are enough 
alternative methods that would be exempt under this special rule that 
lack of an exemption for burrow fumigants should not constrain a 
ranching operation or work in a manner contrary to our intent to 
encourage conservation of California tiger salamanders on private 
rangelands through this special rule.
    Sustainable Livestock Grazing. The act of grazing livestock on 
rangelands in a sustainable manner (i.e., not overgrazed to the point 
where rangeland is denuded and compacted) has the potential for take of 
the California tiger salamander. Grazing livestock in California tiger 
salamander-occupied areas may trample individual salamanders as they 
move to and from their upland habitats, or as adults and newly 
metamorphosed juveniles leave breeding ponds. Salamander eggs and 
larvae located along a pond edge may also be trampled by livestock. 
Salamanders of all life stages may also be taken as a result of 
livestock altering the water quality and physical characteristics of 
breeding ponds. Physical perturbation of pond edges by milling 
livestock may increase siltation of the pond, potentially smothering 
salamander eggs or larvae, and may increase the difficulty for passage 
of juveniles out of the ponds into upland shelters. Water chemistry 
parameters of breeding ponds, such as pH or nitrogen levels, may be 
altered by the introduction of livestock wastes. Such water quality 
changes may be detrimental to all salamander life stages present in a 
breeding pond (Worthylake and Hovingh 1989; Ouellet 2000; Rowe and 
Freda 2000).
    In contrast, sustainable grazing may benefit the California tiger 
salamander in several ways. Sustainable grazing may make areas 
surrounding potential salamander breeding ponds more suitable for 
colonization by California ground squirrels, which are commonly found 
inhabiting well-grazed pasturelands (Jameson and Peeters 1988). Ground 
squirrel colonization produces burrows that are vitally important in 
the life cycle of the California tiger salamander, serving as shelters 
and aestivation sites for the terrestrial adult and juvenile 
salamanders (Seymour and Westphal 1994). The presence of ground 
squirrel burrows may be an important factor determining whether ponds 
can become successful salamander breeding sites. Sustainable grazing 
around natural pools may also benefit the California tiger salamander 
by extending the inundation period (Barry, UC Davis, 2003, in litt.). 
Amphibian larvae must grow to a critical minimum body size before they 
can metamorphose to the terrestrial stage; therefore, the longer a 
breeding site remains inundated, the greater the likelihood for 
juvenile production and survival (Semlitsch et al. 1988; Pechmann et 
al. 1989; Morey 1998; Trenham 1998b). By cropping fast-growing 
vegetation around breeding pools, which would otherwise accelerate 
transpiration, desiccation of the breeding site may be delayed (Barry, 
UC Davis, 2003, in litt.). The potential benefits of sustainable 
livestock grazing, according to normally acceptable and established 
levels of intensity to prevent overgrazing, provide justification for 
including this routine activity in today's special rule.
    Stock Pond Management and Maintenance. Stock ponds are necessary 
components of livestock ranching in many parts of the California tiger 
salamander range, due to California's dry summer climate and the 
limited availability of naturally occurring water. As discussed 
previously, created stock ponds may serve as alternative breeding sites 
for the California tiger salamander in the absence of natural vernal 
pool or seasonal pond habitats. Once a stock pond is occupied as a 
California tiger salamander breeding site, however, salamanders may be 
vulnerable to take from the routine activities necessary to manage and 
maintain the stock pond for continued livestock use.
    Hydroperiod management (i.e., the amount of time the stock pond 
contains water) of California tiger salamander-occupied stock ponds may 
be so short that salamander larvae cannot complete metamorphosis, or so 
long that species known to prey on salamanders may become naturally 
established (Shaffer et al. 1993; Seymour and Westphal 1994). Stock 
ponds with suitable hydroperiods for salamander breeding cycles may 
require ongoing maintenance to protect water supplies and the integrity 
of the storage system. Routine maintenance activities can include 
periodic dredging, dam or berm repair, and mechanical or chemical 
control of aquatic vegetation. If any of these activities are conducted 
during the California tiger salamander breeding season, take of 
salamanders may occur. In addition, stock ponds may become infested by 
mosquitoes, requiring controls in order to protect human or livestock 
health. Mosquito infestations may be controlled by pesticide 
applications or by the introduction of non-native fish species that 
prey on mosquitoes. Take of salamanders may occur if pesticide 
applications are made during the California tiger salamander breeding 
season. However, regardless of what time of year non-native fish are 
introduced for mosquito control, they may become established in the 
stock pond and prey on salamanders during the breeding season. For the 
purposes of this special rule, we considered these various activities 
with regard to whether they could be readily adapted to avoid take of 
the California tiger salamander.
    Hydroperiod management is likely dependent on many factors, 
including the annual water needs of the livestock operation and the 
local hydrological

[[Page 47243]]

conditions (e.g., annual water availability). In any given year, these 
variables may cause a ranching operation to adjust a stock pond's 
hydroperiod in ways that could potentially disrupt the California tiger 
salamander breeding cycle, resulting in take of salamander adults, 
juveniles, or eggs. Although stock pond hydroperiods can theoretically 
be readily adapted to avoid take by maintaining an optimal breeding 
period for the California tiger salamander, we recognize that the 
continued viability of a livestock ranching operation may depend on the 
flexibility to make these hydroperiod adjustments on short notice. We 
also acknowledge the Service would not be able to provide timely 
technical assistance to most land managers. For these reasons, routine 
hydroperiod management of ranching operation stock ponds is included in 
the special rule.
    Periodic dredging to counter the long-term effects of siltation and 
the maintenance or repair of containment structures (e.g., dams, berms, 
levees) are activities necessary to maintain stock pond utility and 
integrity (N. Cremers, 2003, in litt.). Although these actions may 
result in take of salamanders if they coincide with the California 
tiger salamander breeding season, the need to conduct these maintenance 
activities is episodic and should not be necessary on a regular basis. 
In addition, we believe it is unlikely that these activities would be 
necessary during the California tiger salamander breeding season, 
except in the case of emergency repairs on a catastrophic breach, as a 
stock pond's integrity for the spring and summer grazing season should 
be ensured prior to the previous year's rainy winter season. We believe 
the infrequent nature of these routine activities, coupled with the 
likelihood that they will be conducted outside of the California tiger 
salamander breeding season, will have minimal impacts on salamanders in 
occupied stock ponds. For these reasons, the routine activities of 
periodic dredging and containment structure maintenance for ranching 
operation stock ponds are included in this special rule.
    Aquatic vegetation, whether rooted or free-floating, may impede 
stock pond functionality. Control of this vegetation may be mechanical, 
(e.g., harvesters, rakes, skimmers), chemical (e.g., aquatic 
herbicides), or biological (e.g., introduced herbivorous fish). 
Biological controls, such as the sterile grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon 
idella), would pose no predation threat to salamanders; however, this 
type of control is only for established year-round ponds which are 
typically not suitable habitat for California tiger salamander 
reproduction (Shaffer et al. 1993; Seymour and Westphal 1994). 
Vegetation control may also be necessary in temporary stock ponds which 
do provide suitable habitat, and both mechanical and chemical control 
methods may result in inadvertent take of salamanders if conducted 
during the California tiger salamander breeding and juvenile 
metamorphosis season. It is unlikely that vegetation control would be 
needed during the breeding period, as the primary time for explosive 
vegetative growth is during the warm summer months. However, vegetation 
control may be necessary prior to juvenile salamander dispersal into 
summer aestivation sites.
    Mechanical controls may perturb the breeding habitat or cause death 
or injury to resident salamanders; however, these impacts would be 
restricted in time to singular control events. In contrast, chemical 
control using aquatic herbicides may have little immediate physical 
impact on salamanders or breeding habitat, but may negatively impact 
salamander health or reproductive fitness for an indefinite time beyond 
the control event. While no definitive link has been made between 
aquatic herbicide exposure and effects to the California tiger 
salamander, toxicity data in the scientific literature suggest that 
amphibians may be susceptible to adverse impacts from both the active 
and inert ingredients in various herbicide products (see Summary of 
Factors Affecting the Species). In addition, because aquatic herbicides 
disperse throughout a water body, all salamanders within the water body 
may potentially be exposed.
    We recognize that routine aquatic vegetation control may be 
essential for the continued operation of stock ponds, and that this 
activity may not be readily adapted (e.g., postpone control until after 
salamander use of stock ponds is discontinued) to avoid take of the 
California tiger salamander. Although both mechanical and chemical 
controls have the potential to negatively impact salamanders, we 
believe mechanical controls pose less long-term risk to breeding 
populations of California tiger salamander. For the reasons outlined 
above, the routine activity of aquatic vegetation control in ranching 
operation stock ponds is included in this special rule. While chemical 
control of aquatic vegetation in stock ponds is included under the 
special rule exemption, the Service recommends that this activity only 
be conducted outside of the general breeding season (November through 
June) and larval stage of the California tiger salamander.
    Mosquito abatement in aquatic systems is similar to vegetation 
management, in that several control methods exist. The aquatic mosquito 
larvae can be controlled by chemical larvicides (e.g., temephos and 
methoprene), bacterial larvicides, or biological organisms (e.g., 
predaceous mosquitofish). In addition, mosquito larvae can be 
controlled through breeding source reduction and proper water 
management. Bacterial larvicides are especially target-specific, and 
likely pose little risk to salamanders using a stock pond; however, 
these products must be applied in specific timeframes during larval 
mosquito development to be efficacious. A broader range of non-target 
effects may be seen from chemical larvicides, with the potential for 
direct impacts on higher order taxonomic groups such as salamanders 
(Ankley et al. 1998; Blumberg et al. 1998; Sparling 1998). Biological 
organisms such as mosquitofish may become established in the affected 
water body and prey on juvenile salamanders (Graf and Allen-Diaz 1993; 
Leyse and Lawlor 2000).
    While mosquito control in stock ponds may be a routine activity on 
ranching operations, we believe it unlikely that control would be 
necessary during much of the California tiger salamander breeding 
season, as this period coincides with the rainy winter and spring 
months. However, when control cannot be avoided during the latter part 
of the California tiger salamander breeding season, we believe mosquito 
control activities can be readily adapted to prevent or minimize 
potential take of salamanders by appropriate water level management 
and/or the proper application of bacterial larvicides. For this reason, 
these routine activities are included in this special rule. Also 
included in the special rule is the routine activity of properly 
applying (i.e., following label directions and product precautions) 
either chemical or bacterial larvicides into ranching operation stock 
ponds outside of the California tiger salamander general breeding 
season. This exemption for routine mosquito control activities from the 
take prohibitions under section 9 does not include the purposeful 
introduction at any time of non-native biological organisms (e.g., 
western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis)) that may prey on California 
tiger salamander adults, larvae, or eggs.
    Rodent Control. As discussed previously, the burrow complexes of 
various ground dwelling mammals are vitally important in the life cycle 
of the California tiger salamander. These burrows serve as shelters and 
estivation

[[Page 47244]]

sites for the terrestrial adult and juvenile salamanders (Seymour and 
Westphal 1994). In addition, the presence of these burrows near 
suitable water bodies may be critical for any water body to become a 
successful, long-term breeding site for the California tiger 
salamander. It has been estimated that 95 percent of the adult and 
subadult salamanders from a large breeding pool would require an area 
of adjacent upland habitat extending out approximately 650 m (0.4 mi) 
(H. B. Shaffer, in litt. 2003).
    Burrowing rodents, particularly the California ground squirrel, may 
pose problems for livestock ranching operations to such an extent that 
control measures are necessary. Ground squirrels in sufficient numbers 
may deplete livestock forage, while their burrows may be a physical 
hazard for humans, livestock, and ranching machinery (N. Cremers, in 
litt. 2003). Common control measures for these rodents include 
shooting, poisoning with approved pesticides, and mechanical 
modification of burrow complexes (UCIPM Internet website 2003). While 
shooting of ground squirrels poses little risk to salamanders, the 
application of pesticides or the disruption of salamander aestivation 
sites may result in take of the California tiger salamander. Because 
the location of burrow complexes cannot be predicted or controlled, 
rodent control measures must be site-specific and cannot be redirected. 
Thus, the activity of controlling ground squirrels may not be readily 
adapted to avoid implementation in salamander habitats. However, 
because various control options are available that may minimize or 
prevent the potential for take of California tiger salamander, routine 
rodent control activities are included in this special rule.
    Burrowing Rodent Control by Pesticide Application. Controlling 
burrowing rodents with pesticides is generally accomplished through the 
application of toxicant-treated grains, which are ingested by the 
target animals, or by the introduction of fumigants (e.g., toxic or 
suffocating gasses) into burrow complexes. Fumigants are not target-
specific, and all organisms inhabiting a treated burrow complex will 
likely be subject to the effects of the pesticide (i.e., toxicant 
exposure or oxygen depletion). Although specific data are not available 
on the effects of fumigants on the California tiger salamander, the 
permeable skin of amphibians is likely to increase a salamander's 
susceptibility to adverse effects from exposure to toxicants (Henry 
2000). We believe it is necessary to reduce the impact of fumigants on 
sheltering or aestivating salamanders (a March 1993 national 
consultation on the effects of vertebrate control agents reached 
jeopardy conclusions for several California species that use rodent 
burrows), and this control measure should be prohibited in areas used 
by the California tiger salamander. Based on the habitat requirement 
estimates presented above, this prohibition should extend 1.1 km (0.7 
mi) in any direction from a water body, natural or human-made, suitable 
for California tiger salamander breeding. The application of fumigants 
outside of this area restriction is not prohibited.
    Toxicant-treated grains, primarily using anticoagulant compounds, 
may be applied by several methods to control burrowing rodents 
(Silberhorn et al. 2003). Grains may be broadcast over the ground 
surface at defined rates, placed in confined bait stations, or placed 
into burrow openings. Ground squirrels and other rodents ingest these 
baits, and mortality of the exposed animal results from internal 
hemorrhaging. No data were found on the toxicity of these anticoagulant 
compounds to salamanders, although it is possible that exposure to 
these baits may cause similar adverse effects in salamanders. It is 
highly unlikely that salamanders would directly ingest any grains 
encountered; however, indirect exposure to the pesticides through 
dermal contact may occur if the treated grains are placed into 
salamander-occupied burrows. In addition, there may be potential for 
secondary exposure from this application method if estivating 
salamanders consume burrow-dwelling invertebrates that have ingested 
the treated grains. While no definitive risk assessment can be made for 
these possible exposures, we believe this application method would 
result in an increased risk for take of the California tiger salamander 
and should therefore be avoided whenever possible.
    Salamanders may also face these potential indirect and secondary 
exposures from the broadcast and bait station application methods. 
However, by widely dispersing the treated grains over the ground 
surface, the broadcast application method likely reduces the 
probability of migrating salamanders being exposed through dermal 
contact or through ingestion of exposed invertebrates. Similarly, it is 
unlikely that salamanders would enter a confined bait station, further 
reducing the probability of exposure. While we are not endorsing the 
use of rodenticides for ground squirrel or other rodent control, we 
believe these two application methods (i.e., broadcast surface 
treatments or confined bait stations) present a lower risk to the 
California tiger salamander than the burrow-placement method. For the 
reasons outlined above, broadcast and confined bait station application 
as part of routine livestock ranch operations are included in the 
special rule.
    Burrowing Rodent Control by Habitat Modification. Colonies of 
ground squirrels and other burrowing rodents are sometimes controlled 
by using cultivation equipment to destroy or modify burrow complexes. 
The technique of deep-ripping is likely to result in complete 
destruction of the burrow complex and eradication of the rodent colony. 
Any salamanders using these burrows as sheltering or aestivation sites 
would also likely be killed by this activity. Discing of these burrow 
systems, followed by surface grading, removes the physical hazard of 
open holes and may successfully suppress the rodent colony. This 
process may not destroy the entire burrow complex, with the possibility 
of some burrows remaining intact. However, sheltering or aestivating 
salamanders may also suffer substantial mortality from this control 
method.
    While modification of a burrow complex may aid in controlling a 
rodent colony, the primary benefit of such modification for ranching 
operations is the elimination of the physical hazards associated with 
burrows and burrow openings (N. Cremers, in litt. 2003). This may be 
particularly important for areas where livestock congregate in large 
numbers, such as corrals and stock pond watering sites. Because stock 
ponds have become important alternative breeding sites for the 
California tiger salamander, the extent of potential take may be 
directly related to the intensity of burrow complex modification around 
such sites. Large-scale modification of these habitats around a stock 
pond known to support salamanders would have the potential to eliminate 
or drastically reduce that localized breeding population of the 
California tiger salamander. As discussed previously, the majority of a 
localized breeding salamander population may be found in an area of 
adjacent upland habitat extending out up to 1.1 km (0.7 mi) in any 
direction from the breeding pond (H. B. Shaffer, in litt. 2003).
    The Service recognizes that physical modification of rodent burrow 
complexes may be an essential activity to ranching operations. However, 
while habitat modification may not be a widespread practice for 
livestock

[[Page 47245]]

ranches, we believe that an unmoderated approach to this activity could 
have the potential for large-scale take of the California tiger 
salamander in certain locales. Adverse effects upon California tiger 
salamander that could result from large-scale modifications could 
include both direct injury or mortality and significant loss of 
suitable sheltering and aestivation habitats. We believe that a focused 
approach to burrow habitat modification would serve to achieve the dual 
goals of minimizing take of the California tiger salamander and 
reducing livestock ranching losses. To this end, rodent control through 
burrow modification is included in this special rule; however, the 
Service recommends that discing and/or grading of burrows should be 
limited to those areas where livestock congregate or move in large 
numbers. The Service also recommends that modification by deep-ripping 
be avoided within 1.1 km (0.7 mi) of known or potential salamander 
breeding ponds. We recognize that discing and/or grading around stock 
ponds or other suitable breeding pools may increase the risk to 
salamanders, and we encourage ranch operators to minimize the 
modification footprint around these sites as much as possible. We will 
continue to work with the livestock ranching community in developing 
and refining ways to attain these dual objectives.
    Fire Prevention Management. In order to prevent or minimize the 
spread of wildfires in rangelands, livestock ranches may need to 
construct fire breaks in various places throughout the property. These 
fire breaks may be constructed by using cultivation equipment to create 
swaths of unvegetated land along property boundaries or between fields. 
If these fire breaks are constructed over rodent burrow complexes that 
are suitable sheltering or aestivation habitat for salamanders, there 
is the potential for take of the California tiger salamander. However, 
the Service recognizes the critical importance of fire prevention 
management in rangelands, and is thereby including this routine 
ranching activity in the special rule.
    Monitor Impacts on the California Tiger Salamander. While it 
appears that the California tiger salamander may be benefiting from the 
creation of stock ponds and the prevention of rangeland conversion to 
unsuitable habitat throughout its range, much remains to be learned 
about the effects of livestock ranching activities on the salamander. 
We have concluded that developing a conservation partnership with the 
livestock ranching community will allow us to answer important 
questions about the impact of various ranching activities, and will 
provide valuable information to assist in the recovery of the species. 
We further believe that, where consistent with the discretion provided 
by the Act, implementing policies that promote such partnerships is an 
essential component for the recovery of listed species, particularly 
where the species occur on private lands. Conservation partnerships can 
provide positive incentives to private landowners to voluntarily 
conserve natural resources, and can remove or reduce disincentives to 
conservation (Bean, 2002; Conner and Matthews, 2002; Crouse et al., 
2002; James, 2002; Knight, 1999; Koch, 2002; Main et al., 1999; Norton, 
2000; Wilcove et al., 1996). The Service will work closely with the 
ranching community and others in developing ways to monitor impacts on 
the California tiger salamander from the routine activities described 
above. We conclude this commitment is necessary and appropriate, and 
will provide further insights into land stewardship practices that 
foster the continued use of California's rangelands in ways beneficial 
to both the California tiger salamander and the livestock ranching 
community.

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as the--(i) 
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at 
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found 
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation 
of the species, and (II) that may require special management 
considerations or protection, and (ii) specific areas outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed in 
accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Act, upon a 
determination by the Secretary that such areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all 
methods and procedures needed to bring the species to the point at 
which listing under the Act is no longer necessary.
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and implementing regulations (50 CFR 
424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) designate critical habitat at 
the time the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our 
implementing regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)) state that critical habitat 
is not determinable if information sufficient to perform the required 
analysis of impacts of the designation is lacking, or if the biological 
needs of the species are not sufficiently well known to allow 
identification of an area as critical habitat. Section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act requires us to consider economic and other relevant impacts of 
designating a particular area as critical habitat on the basis of the 
best scientific data available. The Secretary may exclude any area from 
critical habitat if she determines that the benefits of such exclusion 
outweigh the conservation benefits, unless to do so would result in the 
extinction of the species. In the absence of a finding that critical 
habitat would increase threats to a species, if any benefits would 
derive from critical habitat designation, then a prudent finding is 
warranted. In the case of this species, designation of critical habitat 
may provide some benefits.
    The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section 7 
requirement that agencies refrain from taking any action that destroys 
or adversely modifies critical habitat. While a critical habitat 
designation for habitat currently occupied by this species would not be 
likely to change the section 7 consultation outcome because an action 
that destroys or adversely modifies such critical habitat would also be 
likely to result in jeopardy to the species, there may be instances 
where section 7 consultation would be triggered only if critical 
habitat is designated. Examples could include unoccupied habitat or 
occupied habitat that may become unoccupied in the future. Designating 
critical habitat may also produce some educational or informational 
benefits. Therefore, designation of critical habitat for the Central 
California tiger salamander population is prudent and the proposed 
designation will be published in an upcoming Federal Register. We 
proposed critical habitat for the Santa Barbara population on January 
22, 2003 (69 FR 19364). We will finalize critical habitat for the Santa 
Barbara California tiger salamander population by the court-ordered 
deadline of November 15, 2004. We intend to publish a proposed rule to 
designate critical habitat for the Sonoma population in the future.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing encourages conservation actions 
by Federal, State, and local agencies. The Act provides for possible 
land acquisition and

[[Page 47246]]

cooperation with the State and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out for listed species. We discuss the protection from the 
actions of Federal agencies, considerations for protection and 
conservation actions, and the prohibitions against taking and harm for 
the California tiger salamander, in part, below.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed to 
be listed or is listed as endangered or threatened, and with respect to 
its critical habitat, if any is being designated. Regulations 
implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are 
codified at 50 CFR part 402. Federal agencies are required to confer 
with us informally on any action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of a proposed species, or result in destruction or 
adverse modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is 
listed subsequently, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to 
ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to 
destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal agency 
action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must enter into formal consultation with us. 
Federal agency actions that may affect the California tiger salamander 
throughout its range and may require consultation with us include, but 
are not limited to, those within the jurisdiction of the Corps and 
Federal Highway Administration (FHA).
    We believe that protection and recovery of the California tiger 
salamander will require reduction of the threats from destruction, 
fragmentation, and degradation of wetland and associated upland 
habitats due to urban development, conversion of habitat to intensive 
agriculture, predation by non-native species, disease, contaminants, 
agricultural and landscaping contaminants, rodent and mosquito control, 
road-crossing mortality, hybridization with non-native tiger 
salamanders, and some livestock grazing practices. Threats from 
pesticide drift also must be reduced. These threats should be 
considered when management actions are taken in habitats currently and 
potentially occupied by the California tiger salamander, and areas 
deemed important for dispersal and connectivity or corridors between 
known locations of this species. Monitoring also should be undertaken 
for any management actions or scientific investigations designed to 
address these threats or their impacts.
    Listing the California tiger salamander as a whole provides for the 
development and implementation of a rangewide recovery plan. This plan 
will bring together Federal, State, and regional agency efforts for the 
conservation of the California tiger salamander. A recovery plan will 
establish a framework for agencies to coordinate their recovery 
efforts. The plan will set recovery priorities and estimate the costs 
of the tasks necessary to accomplish the priorities. It also will 
describe the site-specific actions necessary to achieve conservation 
and survival of the species.
    Listing also will require us to review any actions that may affect 
the California tiger salamander as a whole for lands and activities 
under Federal jurisdiction, State plans developed pursuant to section 6 
of the Act, scientific investigations of efforts to enhance the 
propagation or survival of the animal pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) 
of the Act, and habitat conservation plans prepared for non-Federal 
lands and activities pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
    Federal agencies with management responsibility for the California 
tiger salamander include the Service, in relation to the issuance of 
section 10(a)(1)(A) and (B) permits for scientific research, habitat 
conservation plans, and other programs. Occurrences of this species 
could potentially be affected by projects requiring a permit from the 
Corps under section 404 of the CWA. The Corps is required to consult 
with us on applications they receive for projects that may affect 
listed species. Highway construction and maintenance projects that 
receive funding from the FHA would be subject to review under section 7 
of the Act. In addition, activities that are authorized, funded, or 
administered by Federal agencies on non-Federal lands will be subject 
to section 7 review.
    The Act and implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.31 set 
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all 
threatened wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for 
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take 
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 
capture, or collect; or attempt any such conduct), import, export, 
transport in interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial 
activity, or sell or offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce 
any listed species. It also is illegal to possess, sell, deliver, 
carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken 
illegally. Certain exceptions apply to our agents and State 
conservation agencies. In this case, we propose a special rule tailored 
to this particular species to take the place of the regulations in 50 
CFR 17.31. The special rule, though, incorporates most requirements of 
the general regulations, along with additional exceptions.
    Permits may be issued under section 10(a)(1) of the Act to carry 
out otherwise prohibited activities involving threatened wildlife under 
certain circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 
CFR 17.32 for threatened species. Such permits are available for 
scientific purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the 
species, and for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful 
activities.
    Habitat conservation plans (HCPs) provide one mechanism for 
reconciling potential conflicts between project actions and incidental 
take of listed species. The Service is actively working with the Fort 
Ord Reuse Authority on developing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in 
compliance with section 10 of the Act. The California tiger salamander 
is proposed to be covered under this developing HCP. HCPs reconcile the 
authorization of incidental take for species, such as the California 
tiger salamander, with species conservation. Consistent with the Act 
and its section 10 implementing regulations, a final Fort Ord HCP with 
an incidental take permit would provide for the conservation of 
California tiger salamander at Fort Ord, while allowing projects that 
impact California tiger salamander to move forward.
    It is our policy, as published in the Federal Register on July 1, 
1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at 
the time a species is listed, those activities that would or would not 
constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this 
policy is to increase public awareness of the effect of the listing on 
proposed and ongoing activities within a species' range. We believe 
that, based on the best available information, the following actions 
are not likely to result in a violation of section 9, provided these 
actions are carried out in accordance with any existing regulations and 
permit requirements:
    (1) Possession, delivery, including interstate transport and import 
or export from the United States, involving no commercial activity, of 
California tiger salamanders that were collected prior to the date of 
publication of a final regulation in the Federal Register adding the 
California tiger salamander to the list of endangered and threatened 
species;
    (2) Any actions that may affect the California tiger salamander 
that are

[[Page 47247]]

authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency, when the action 
is conducted in accordance with the consultation requirements for 
listed species pursuant to section 7 of the Act, or for which such 
action will not result in take;
    (3) Any action taken for scientific research carried out under a 
recovery permit issued by the Service pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) 
of the Act;
    (4) Land actions or management carried out under an HCP approved by 
the Service pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, or an approved 
conservation agreement; and
    (5) Grazing management practices that do not result in degradation 
or elimination of suitable California tiger salamander habitat and 
activities described in the 4(d) rule included in this notice.
    Activities that we believe could potentially result in a violation 
of section 9 of the Act include, but are not limited to, the following:
    (1) Unauthorized possession, collecting, trapping, capturing, 
killing, harassing, sale, delivery, or movement, including intrastate, 
interstate, and foreign commerce, or harming, or attempting any of 
these actions, of California tiger salamanders. Research activities 
where salamanders are trapped or captured will require a permit under 
section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Act;
    (2) Activities authorized, funded, or carried out by Federal 
agencies that may affect the California tiger salamander, or its 
habitat, when such activities are not conducted in accordance with the 
consultation for listed species under section 7 of the Act;
    (3) Unauthorized discharges or dumping of toxic chemicals, silt, or 
other pollutants into, or other illegal alteration of the quality of 
waters supporting California tiger salamanders that results in death or 
injury of the species or that results in degradation of their occupied 
habitat to an extent that individuals are killed or injured or 
essential behaviors such as breeding, feeding, and sheltering are 
impaired;
    (4) Intentional release of exotic species (including, but not 
limited to, bullfrogs, tiger salamanders, mosquitofish, bass, sunfish, 
bullhead, catfish, crayfish) into currently occupied California tiger 
salamander breeding habitat;
    (5) Destruction or alteration of the California tiger salamander 
occupied habitat through discharge of fill materials into breeding 
sites; draining, ditching, tilling, stream channelization, drilling, 
pumping, or other activities that interrupt surface or ground water 
flow into or out of the vernal pool, and seasonal or perennial pond 
habitats of this species (i.e., due to the construction, installation, 
or operation and maintenance of roads, impoundments, discharge or drain 
pipes, storm water detention basins, wells, water diversion structures, 
etc.);
    (6) Destruction or alteration of uplands associated with seasonal 
pools used by California tiger salamanders during estivation and 
dispersal, or modification of migration routes such that migration and 
dispersal are reduced or precluded and actual death or injury to the 
species results; and
    (7) Activities (e.g., habitat conversion, road and trail 
construction, recreation, development, and application of herbicides 
and pesticides in violation of label restrictions) that directly or 
indirectly result in the death or injury of larvae, juvenile, or adult 
California tiger salamanders, or modify California tiger salamander 
habitat in such a way that it adversely affects their essential 
behavioral patterns including breeding, foraging, sheltering, or other 
life functions. Otherwise lawful activities that incidentally take 
California tiger salamanders, but have no Federal nexus, will require a 
permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
    Questions regarding whether specific activities will constitute a 
violation of section 9 should be directed to the Field Supervisor of 
the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT section). Requests for copies of the regulations regarding 
listed species and inquiries regarding prohibitions and permits may be 
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species 
Permits, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland OR 97232-4181 (503/231-2063; 
facsimile 503/231-6243).

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that an Environmental Assessment and 
Environmental Impact Statement, as defined under the authority of the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in 
connection with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the 
Endangered Species Act as amended. We published a notice outlining our 
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25, 
1983 (48 FR 49244).

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information other 
than those already approved by the Office of Management and Budget 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned 
control number 1018-0094, which is valid through July 31, 2004. This 
rule will not impose record keeping or reporting requirements on State 
or local governments, individuals, businesses, or organizations. An 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently 
valid control number.

Executive Order 13211

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O.) 
13211 on regulations that significantly affect energy supply, 
distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to prepare 
Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. This 
rule is not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, 
distribution, or use. Therefore, this action is not a significant 
energy action, and no Statement of Energy Effects is required.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available upon request from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 
(see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

0
For the reasons given in the preamble, we amend part 17, subchapter B 
of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 
below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C. 
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by revising the entry for ``Salamander, 
California tiger,'' under AMPHIBIANS, in the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife, as set forth below:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 47248]]



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Species
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Vertebrate
                                                                            population where                                   Critical        Special
           Common Name              Scientific name      Historic range       endangered or        Status     When listed       habitat         rules
                                                                               threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
           AMPHIBIANS
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Salamander, California tiger....  Ambystoma            U.S.A. (CA).......  U.S.A. (CA--        T                      744  NA                       Sec.
                                   californiense.                           California).                                                        17.43(c)
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.43 by adding a new paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  17.43  Special rule--amphibians.

* * * * *
    (c) California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense).
    (1) Which populations of the California tiger salamander are 
covered by this special rule? This rule covers the California tiger 
salamander (Ambystoma californiense) rangewide.
    (2) What activities are prohibited? Except as noted in paragraph 
(c)(3) of this section, all prohibitions of Sec.  17.31 will apply to 
the California tiger salamander.
    (3) What activities are allowed on private or Tribal land? 
Incidental take of the California tiger salamander will not be a 
violation of section 9 of the Act, if the incidental take results from 
routine ranching activities located on private or Tribal lands. Routine 
ranching activities include, but are not limited to, the following:
    (i) Livestock grazing according to normally acceptable and 
established levels of intensity in terms of the number of head of 
livestock per acre of rangeland;
    (ii) Control of ground-burrowing rodents using poisonous grain 
according to the labeled directions and local, State, and Federal 
regulations and guidelines (The use of toxic or suffocating gases is 
not exempt from the prohibitions due to their nontarget-specific mode 
of action.);
    (iii) Control and management of burrow complexes using discing and 
grading to destroy burrows and fill openings;
    (iv) Routine management and maintenance of stock ponds and berms to 
maintain livestock water supplies (This exemption does not include the 
intentional introduction of species into a stock pond that may prey on 
California tiger salamander adults, larvae, or eggs.);
    (v) Routine maintenance or construction of fences for grazing 
management;
    (vi) Planting, harvest, or rotation of unirrigated forage crops as 
part of a rangeland livestock operation;
    (vii) Maintenance and construction of livestock management 
facilities such as corrals, sheds, and other ranch outbuildings;
    (viii) Repair and maintenance of unimproved ranch roads (This 
exemption does not include improvement, upgrade, or construction of new 
roads.);
    (ix) Discing of fencelines or perimeter areas for fire prevention 
control;
    (x) Placement of mineral supplements; and
    (xi) Control and management of noxious weeds.

    Dated: July 23, 2004.
Thomas O. Melius,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 04-17236 Filed 7-27-04; 3:27 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P