[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62900-62926]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25522]



[[Page 62899]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 196

October 11, 2011

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 
Petition To List the Tehachapi Slender Salamander as Endangered or 
Threatened; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 196 / Tuesday, October 11, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 62900]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R8-ES-2008-0087]


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding 
on a Petition To List the Tehachapi Slender Salamander as Endangered or 
Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 
12-month finding on a petition to list the Tehachapi slender salamander 
(Batrachoseps stebbinsi) as threatened or endangered, under the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). After review of all 
available scientific and commercial information, we find that listing 
the Tehachapi slender salamander is not warranted. However, we ask the 
public to submit to us any new information that becomes available 
concerning threats to the Tehachapi slender salamander or its habitat 
at any time.

DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on October 11, 
2011.

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R8-ES-2008-0087 and at http://www.fws.gov/ventura. Supporting documentation we used in preparing this 
finding is available for public inspection, by appointment, during 
normal business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura 
Fish and Wildlife Office, 2493 Portola Road, Suite B, Ventura, CA 
93003; telephone 805-644-1766; facsimile 805-644-3958. Please submit 
any new information, materials, or questions concerning this finding to 
the above address or via electronic mail (e-mail) at [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael McCrary, Listing and Recovery 
Program Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES) by telephone at 805-644-7166; or by 
facsimile at 805-644-3958. Persons who use a telecommunications device 
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service 
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), requires that, for any petition 
to revise the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Species that 
contains substantial scientific or commercial information that listing 
the species may be warranted, we make a finding within 12 months of the 
date of receipt of the petition. In this finding, we will determine 
that the petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted, (2) warranted, or (3) 
warranted, but the immediate proposal of a regulation implementing the 
petitioned action is precluded by other pending proposals to determine 
whether species are threatened or endangered, and expeditious progress 
is being made to add or remove qualified species from the Federal Lists 
of Endangered and Threatened Species. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act 
requires that we treat a petition for which the requested action is 
found to be warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date 
of such finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made 
within 12 months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the 
Federal Register.

Previous Federal Actions

    On February 28, 2006, we received a petition, dated February 17, 
2006, from Mr. Jeremy Nichols of Denver, Colorado, requesting that the 
Tehachapi slender salamander (Batrachoseps stebbinsi) be listed as 
threatened or endangered in accordance with section 4 of the Act. The 
petition clearly identified itself as such and contained the name, 
address, and signature of the petitioning private citizen, as required 
in 50 CFR 424.14(a).
    In response to the petition, we sent a letter to the petitioner 
dated April 20, 2006, explaining that we would not be able to address 
the petition until fiscal year 2007. The reason for this delay was that 
responding to existing court orders and settlement agreements for other 
listing actions expended our listing funding. We also concluded in our 
April 20, 2006, letter that emergency listing of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander was not warranted. We were delayed in responding to the 
petition until funding became available.
    On April 22, 2009, the Service issued its 90-day finding (74 FR 
18336), concluding that the petition presented substantial scientific 
or commercial information to indicate that listing the Tehachapi 
slender salamander may be warranted. We also announced the initiation 
of a status review to determine if listing the species is warranted and 
solicited information to be provided in connection with the status 
review.
    We contracted with Robert Hansen, a recognized scientific expert on 
the Tehachapi slender salamander, editor of the Herpetological Review, 
and author of peer-reviewed papers on the species (Hansen 1980, pp. 1-
50; Hansen and Stafford 1994, pp. 252-255; Hansen and Wake 2005, pp. 
693-695), to develop a technical report (Hansen 2009, pp. 1-30) 
addressing the species' range and distribution relative to current and 
foreseeable land uses to assess effects of habitat alteration on the 
salamander. This notice constitutes our 12-month finding on the 
February 28, 2006, petition to list the Tehachapi slender salamander as 
threatened or endangered.

Species Description

    Like others in the Family Plethodontidae (the lungless 
salamanders), the Tehachapi slender salamander breathes through its 
smooth, thin skin. Species in the Batrachoseps genus tend to have 
elongated bodies and tails, and shorter limbs. Compared to other 
species of attenuate Batrachoseps, the Tehachapi slender salamander has 
a relatively broad head, long legs, large feet, long toes, a robust 
body, and a short tail. Both front and hind feet contain four toes and 
are more webbed than other Batrachoseps species. The dorsal color may 
be dark red, brick red, or light or dark brown with light-tan or black 
patches that often form a band-like pattern. The Tehachapi slender 
salamander is characterized by 19 intercostal grooves on each side of 
the body (Brame and Murray 1968, p. 19). The Tehachapi slender 
salamander is sexually dimorphic. The average size of adult females is 
2.24 inches (in) (57 millimeters (mm), and adult males average 2.13 in 
(54 mm) snout-to-vent length. Brame and Murray (1968, p. 18) first 
described the species in 1968.
    The Tehachapi slender salamander belongs in the genus Batrachoseps, 
one of 25 genera in the subfamily Bolitoglossinae (Jockusch in litt. 
2009a, p. 2; Jockusch in litt. 2009b, p. 1). The subgenus Batrachoseps 
(under the genus Batrachoseps) consists of four groups or clades (a 
nontaxonomic rank based on genetic or morphological comparisons) 
comprising 16 species and a few undescribed taxa all of which are 
adapted to fossorial (subterranean) and semifossorial existences 
(Jockusch and Wake 2002, pp. 362, 380). The four groups are attenuatus, 
nigriventris, pacificus, and relictus (Jockusch in litt. 2009a, p. 1). 
The Tehachapi slender salamander belongs in the nigriventris group, 
along with the black-bellied

[[Page 62901]]

slender salamander (B. nigriventris), gregarious slender salamander (B. 
gregarious), and Kern Canyon slender salamander (B. simatus) (Jockusch 
in litt. 2009c, p. 1; Jockusch and Wake 2002, p. 363). Based on genetic 
studies, the Tehachapi slender salamander is considered to be closely 
related to the Kern Canyon slender salamander (Hansen and Stafford 
1994, p. 252; Jockusch and Wake 2002, p. 364).
    There are two known populations of Tehachapi slender salamander, 
the Caliente Canyon population and the Tehachapi Mountains population, 
both of which are described in detail below under the Range and 
Distribution section. We examined information suggesting that the two 
populations may represent separate species. We evaluated information 
discussed by Jockusch (1996, pp. 1-231) and Jockusch and Wake (2002, 
pp. 361-391), regarding the large amount of genetic and morphological 
differences between the two populations (Nichols 2006, p. 5). Hansen 
and Wake (2005, p. 694) also suggest that the two may eventually be 
classified as separate species based on genetic and morphological data. 
However, based on subsequent genetic research, Jockusch (in litt. 
2009d, p. 1) concluded that considering the two populations separate 
species was not warranted at this time. Hansen (2009a, pers. comm.) 
believes there are not enough differences between the two populations 
to classify them as separate species or subspecies. Therefore, we 
conclude at this time that the two populations of Tehachapi slender 
salamanders are a single species.

Biology and Natural History

    Western species of plethodontid salamanders, including the 
Tehachapi slender salamander, are completely terrestrial amphibians and 
do not need standing or flowing water for any stage of their life cycle 
(Zug et al. 2001, p. 383). Because their entire life cycle occurs on 
land, they are vulnerable to desiccation. Thus, the Tehachapi slender 
salamander, like other plethodontids, requires moist microhabitats. As 
such, its above-surface activity is greatly reduced outside of the 
rainy season (Feder 1983, pp. 295-296).
    Peak periods of surface activity for the nocturnal Tehachapi 
slender salamander occur during the rainy season, typically February 
through March, but may occur earlier depending on the timing of late-
fall/early-winter rains (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694; Hansen in litt. 
2009a, p. 2). During wetter years, peak activity may extend to April or 
early May at higher elevations (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694). These 
salamanders retreat to underground refugia (up to 3 feet (ft) (0.9 
meters (m)) below the surface) during the warmer months or during 
periods of freezing temperatures and are believed to aestivate during 
this time (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694; Hansen in litt. 2009b, p. 1; 
Hansen 2010 pers. comm.).
    Specific information on the reproductive biology and behavior of 
the Tehachapi slender salamander is unknown. There is no reported 
information on the size and age at sexual maturity, nesting behavior, 
clutch size, or timing of egg hatching for the Tehachapi slender 
salamander (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694). However, Hansen and Wake 
(2005, p. 694) suggest that eggs are likely laid underground well below 
the talus and leaf litter material. The Tehachapi slender salamander 
cannot dig its own burrows, so it uses spaces dug in leaf litter or 
talus by other animals, or spaces that result from decaying vegetation 
(Hansen 2009b, pers. comm.; Hansen and Stafford 1994, p. 254). Jockusch 
and Mahoney (1997, p. 699) suggest that oviposition in Tehachapi 
slender salamanders occurs after the first rains in the fall or winter, 
and only once per season, based on their observations of oviposition 
occurring in November in the related black-bellied slender salamander.
    Little is known about the behavior of Batrachoseps species, but 
feeding and reproduction are assumed to occur during brief periods of 
surface activity (Hansen in litt. 2009b, p. 1). The low metabolic rate 
of plethodontid salamanders enables them to sustain themselves on their 
energy reserves when surface conditions are not suitable for foraging. 
They are believed to be inactive (i.e., do not forage) while 
underground (Feder 1983, pp. 304-306). The Tehachapi slender salamander 
has been observed to capture prey, consisting of small terrestrial 
invertebrates, with its projectile tongue (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 
694). Hansen and Stafford suggest that the diet of the Tehachapi 
slender salamander is likely to be similar to other related 
Batrachoseps, consisting of small spiders, mites, and insects (Hansen 
and Stafford 1994, p. 254). Predators of this species are not well 
known. Other salamander species are known to be preyed upon by birds, 
such as American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common ravens (Corvus 
corax), and jays, as well as raccoons (Procyon lotor), skunks, opossums 
(Didelphis virginiana), and snakes (HumboldtHerps 2010, p. 2; Kuchta 
2005, p. 266). The only documented predator of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander that we know of is a ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus) 
(Burkhardt et al. 2001, p. 245). We are not aware of any information 
about parasites or diseases affecting this species or information about 
symbiotic or mutualistic interactions with other organisms.

Habitat Characteristics

    Tehachapi slender salamanders are restricted to seasonally mesic 
microhabitats on north-facing slopes in otherwise dry regions of the 
Tehachapi Mountains and the southern end of the Sierra Nevada Mountains 
(Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694). Suitable habitat consists typically of 
shaded, north-facing slopes containing talus substrates or areas with 
considerable leaf litter or downed wood (Jockusch and Wake 2002, p. 
362; Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 693; Hansen 2009, p. 2). These heavily 
shaded, north-facing slopes generally occur on the lower reaches of a 
hillside where sun exposure is the most limited (Hansen in litt. 2010b, 
p. 1). The species has most often been found to occur on slopes with 
limestone talus, scattered rocks, fissured rock outcrops, fallen logs, 
leaf litter under tree canopy cover where moisture and humidity are 
high compared to nearby sites with reduced canopy cover or greater 
slope exposure (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694; CaliforniaHerps 2008, p. 
2; Hansen 2009, p. 2). The species was also recently found on an 
atypical, more exposed north-facing slope in a new location (Silver 
Creek) in the northeast corner of its range under large rocks; talus 
mixed with soil; logs; and in some cases, dead Yucca spp. plants 
(family Asparagaceae) (see Figure 1) (Sweet in litt. 2011, p. 1). 
Habitat that meets the requirements of the Tehachapi slender salamander 
in the two areas (Caliente Canyon and Tehachapi Mountains areas; see 
``Range and Distribution'' section below) where the species occurs is 
sparse and patchily distributed. These patches of suitable habitat are 
dominated by Aesculus californica (California buckeye), Platanus 
racemosa (California sycamore), and Quercus chrysolepis (canyon live 
oak). Based on survey photographs (Sweet 2011, pp. 8-10), the atypical 
Silver Creek location in the northeast corner of the range also 
includes abundant junipers (Juniperus californica). The species has 
been documented to occur from 1,804 to 4,825 ft (550 to 1,471 m) in 
altitude throughout its range (Hansen 2009, p. 2; Sweet in litt. 2011, 
p. 1).
    Movement patterns, individual dispersal, and home range size of the

[[Page 62902]]

Tehachapi slender salamander are unknown. However, genetic studies of 
related Batrachoseps species (Jockusch 1996, p. 80; Hansen and Wake 
2005, p. 694) indicate that female movement is limited (Jockusch and 
Wake 2002, p. 381). Jockusch (1996, p. 80) observed genetic differences 
over short geographic distances (ranging from 1.6 to 25 miles (mi) or 
2.5 to 40 kilometers (km)) within a population of a closely related 
species, the black-bellied slender salamander, indicating that the 
females had not moved between populations for millions of years. No 
quantitative studies on movement patterns, individual dispersal, and 
home range size have been completed for species of Batrachoseps except 
for the California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus). 
Anderson (1960, p. 369) observed that the California slender salamander 
movements were limited to approximately 5 ft (2 m), and Maiorana (1978, 
p. 1020) observed that individuals of the same species stay within a 
6.6-ft (2-m) area, on average. Based on the limited data on the 
California slender salamander, we infer that individual Tehachapi 
slender salamanders are likely to stay within an area of a few meters 
during their lifetime (Hansen in litt. 2009b, p.1; Hansen in litt. 
2009c, p. 1).

Range and Distribution

    The Tehachapi slender salamander is endemic to Kern County, 
California (Stebbins 2003, p. 185; Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 693). The 
general range of the species in the Tehachapi Mountains extends from 
the Piute Mountains in the north to Fort Tejon State Historic Park 
(SHP) in the south.
    Since the publication of our 90-day finding (74 FR 18336; April 26, 
2009), we have obtained additional data regarding the distribution of 
the Tehachapi slender salamander. In this finding, we have updated the 
description of the distribution of the Tehachapi slender salamander 
presented in the 90-day finding to reflect the best available 
scientific information. As stated above, we relied extensively on 
Hansen's technical report on the Tehachapi slender salamander in the 
preparation of this review because it provides the most comprehensive 
information on confirmed species occurrences throughout the species' 
range. An occurrence refers to a small patch of habitat (rather than a 
specific point location), where one or more individuals of the species 
was observed and verified. Hansen's 2009 report incorporates his past 
work, information gathered from the September 2008 habitat assessment, 
all vouchered museum specimen occurrences, and confirmed reports of 
occurrences from Jockusch and Wake (2002), other species experts, and 
the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2007). This report 
also documents current land uses and land ownership at sites where this 
species has been reported, assesses habitat quality, and reviews 
potential threats to the species based on its distribution and natural 
history. We also report new locations not included in any of the above 
that were recently found by Christopher Evelyn and Dr. Sam Sweet 
(University of California, Santa Barbara) in the northeastern portion 
of the species' range (Sweet 2011, pp. 8-10; Sweet in litt. 2011, p. 
1).
    The current known range of the Tehachapi slender salamander 
consists of two disjunct areas that are separated by approximately 13 
mi (21 km) of dry, rugged, mountainous terrain. We consider these two 
disjunct areas as separate populations, the Caliente Canyon and 
Tehachapi Mountains populations. The Caliente Canyon population is 
located northeast of State Highway 58 and west of the Piute Mountains, 
and lies in the southern foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, 
south of Kern Canyon. The Tehachapi Mountains population is located 
southwest of State Highway 58 and extends to Fort Tejon State Historic 
Park (SHP) (Hansen and Stafford 1994, p. 255). This population lies in 
the Tehachapi Mountains and the San Emigdio/Mount Pinos area of Kern 
County, on both sides of Interstate Highway 5. Until recently, the 
species was known from 21 occurrences (from northeast to southwest), 14 
in Caliente Canyon, 6 in the Tehachapi Mountains (including 5 on Tejon 
Ranch and 1 on Fort Tejon SHP), and 1 near Highway 58 (Tehachapi Pass 
location, see Figure 1 below) (Hansen 2009, pp. 8-10; ICF Jones and 
Stokes 2009, p. 4.4-156 and Figure 4.4-8). The 21 previously known 
occurrence records span a period from 1957 through 2007; most recorded 
occurrences are on private land. In addition to the 21 previously known 
occurrences, Christopher Evelyn and Dr. Sam Sweet found 4 new locations 
in the northeastern portion of the species' range (Sweet 2011, pp. 1-
13; Sweet in litt. 2011, p. 1), bringing the total known occurrences to 
25, including one that is extirpated.
    We have defined the ranges of the two populations of the Tehachapi 
slender salamander as the canyons with known occurrences. Based on the 
presence of at least one known occurrence, we infer that the habitat 
up- and downcanyon from the occurrence is likely to be suitable and 
occupied. By using the best available aerial photographs, we determined 
the boundaries of each occupied segment based on the up- and downcanyon 
extent of vegetation that could support the species. We have not 
calculated the actual acreage of each canyon segment because we cannot 
determine the actual width of the suitable habitat, but in many cases 
it probably only extends about 50-100 ft (15-30 m) upslope from the 
canyon bottom. Instead, each occupied segment includes the approximate 
linear extent of contiguous suitable habitat within each canyon that 
has documented occurrences.
    The known range of the Caliente Canyon population is based on 18 
occurrences (including 4 newly discovered occurrences) and consists of 
5 canyon segments totaling approximately 9 linear mi (14.5 km) (Figure 
1), including: Caliente Canyon (14 occurrences, 7 linear mi (11.3-km)), 
Tollgate Canyon (1 occurrence, 0.8 linear mi (1.3 km)), Indian Creek (1 
occurrence, 0.5 linear mi (0.8 km)), an unnamed canyon south of Indian 
Creek (1 occurrence, 0.4 linear mi (0.6 km)), and Silver Creek (1 
occurrence, 0.3 linear mi (0.5 km)).
    Tehahcapi slender salamanders were first discovered in Caliente 
Canyon in 1967 (Brame and Murray 1968, p. 18), and Hansen included 
Caliente Canyon is his 2008 habitat assessment (Hansen 2009, pp. 1-30). 
However, Hansen's 2009 report does not include any information on the 
four new occurrences outside Caliente Canyon, which were discovered in 
2011. The 14 occurrences in Caliente Canyon closely follow Caliente 
Creek between the junction of Bealville Road and California Bodfish 
Road (10 mi (16 km) west of Loraine) and the unincorporated community 
of Loraine (see Figure 1). Caliente Canyon runs roughly from east to 
west and has a number of seasonally moist areas on the steep north-
facing slopes bordering Caliente Canyon Road. Tehachapi slender 
salamander habitat in Caliente Canyon is patchily distributed and 
discontinuous because slope aspect throughout the canyon varies as a 
result of the natural bends in the canyon and the occurrence of side 
canyons. Twelve of the 14 occurrences (approximately 85 percent) in 
Caliente Canyon occur on private land and 2 (approximately 15 percent) 
occur on Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land (Hansen 2009, p. 3). 
Suitable habitat for the species may also occur on north-facing slopes 
of unnamed side canyons that stem from Caliente Canyon (Hansen 2008a, 
b, pers. comm.; Sweet in litt. 2009, p. 2).

[[Page 62903]]

    Information is limited for the four newly discovered occurrences of 
the Caliente Canyon population at this time. The new occurrences range 
from about 5.75 to 7 mi (9.3 to 11.3 km) south and southeast of the the 
easternmost occurrence in Caliente Canyon (Figure 1). Based on photos 
of the new areas taken when the species was first found there (Sweet 
2011, pp. 1-13), the habitat in the vicinity of the occurrences in 
Tollgate Canyon, Indian Creek, and the unnamed canyon south of Indian 
Creek is typical of Tehachapi slender salamanders--steep, shaded, tree-
covered, north-facing slopes, with talus and fallen logs. Although the 
Silver Creek occurrence is also on a north-facing slope, it is atypical 
for the species in that it is more exposed than other occurrences, with 
Juniperus california and Pinus spp. (pines) predominating instead of 
Quercus chrysolepis and Aesculus californica. Three of the four new 
occurrences for the Caliente Canyon population occur on private land 
and one occurs on BLM land.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC11.005

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

[[Page 62904]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11OC11.006

    A few reports of Tehachapi slender salamanders have not been 
confirmed or have been determined to be other species of slender 
salamander. In 1973, Richman reported the presence of Tehachapi slender 
salamander in Tulare County (Richman 1973, p. 97). Richman stated that 
two adult specimens fitting the description of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander were found under a Pinus jeffreyi (Jeffrey pine) log on an 
east-facing slope in the Sequoia National Forest, Tulare County, 
California. In a 1980 report to the State of California Resources 
Agency, Hansen (1980, p. 38) disagreed with Richman's claim that the 
range of the Tehachapi slender salamander extended to Tulare County. 
Based on his own collections at the site described by Richman, Hansen 
(1980, p. 38) stated that the specimens are definitively not 
Batrachoseps stebbinsi, and later found that what Richman described was 
the first sighting of the Kern Plateau salamander (B. robustus) 
(AmphibiaWeb 2009, p. 4; Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 695; Wake et al. 
2002, p. 1016). BLM also reported the species occurring in Tulare 
County (BLM 2009, p. 1); however, this report could not be confirmed 
(Verner in litt. 2008, p. 1). The U.S. Forest Service reported that 
there are no known occurrences of the species within the lands of the 
National Forest System (U.S. Forest Service 2009, p. 2). Based on this 
information, we currently do not believe that the range of the 
Tehachapi slender salamander extends beyond Kern County.

Potential Suitable Habitat

    Although we do not include any potentially suitable habitat outside 
the canyons that are known to be occupied for the reasons described 
below, researchers have speculated that suitable habitat occurs in 
other canyons and that other canyons may be occupied. During his 2008 
habitat assessment, Hansen (pers. comm. 2008b; 2009, pp. 5-6) 
identified additional areas of suitable habitat along Caliente Creek 
Road between the junction of Bodfish Road and the community of Loraine, 
and in the southwest reaches of the Fort Tejon SHP in Johnson Canyon, 
near the border with Los Padres National Forest. Hansen's report 
identified five general areas containing mesic north-facing slopes as 
potential habitat for the Tehachapi slender salamander, including: (1) 
Along Indian Creek Road, southeast of Loraine in Caliente Canyon; (2) 
drainages in Cummings and Bear Valleys; (3) canyons on Tejon Ranch 
connected to Clear, Sycamore, Cedar, Chanac, Tunis, and El Paso Creeks; 
(4) areas in Johnson Canyon within Fort Tejon SHP near the border with 
Los Padres National Forest; and (5) the northern slopes of the San 
Emigdio Mountains (e.g., Black Bob Canyon) (Hansen 2009, pp. 5-6). 
Hansen (2009) did not provide a quantitative estimate of potential 
habitat. Subsequent to Hansen's 2009 report, Indian Creek has been 
found to be occupied by the salamander (Sweet in litt., p. 1).
    In addition to Hansen's work, Dr. Sweet identified suitable habitat 
in several tributary canyons extending south of Caliente Canyon (Sweet 
in litt. 2009, pp. 1-2). Within this estimated 30-square-mile (7,770-
ha) area, Sweet (in litt. 2009, pp. 1-2) described the presence of 
steep, north-facing slopes containing patches of oak trees, springs and 
seepages, and areas containing talus. In his 2009 letter, Sweet (in 
litt. 2009, p. 2) stated that he had seen the Tehachapi slender 
salamander in this area and suggested that they may be widespread in 
these tributary canyons stemming from Caliente Creek. However, at that 
time, Sweet was unable to provide the Service with specific occurrence 
information. Subsequently, Christopher Evelyn and Dr. Sweet verified 
that at least a few of these canyons are occupied (Sweet 2011, pp. 1-
13).

[[Page 62905]]

    Although other canyons may have some habitat characteristics 
similar to those that are known to be occupied, we are not speculating 
here as to either their suitability for Tehachapi slender salamanders 
or the likelihood that they may be occupied. Although not studied in 
detail, the species' habitat requirements appear to be highly specific 
(e.g., specific soil type; narrow range of soil moisture and 
temperature; substrate type and density; over- and understory 
structure; presence of appropriate refugia) and habitat that may have 
the general appearance of being suitable (e.g., north-facing slope with 
an overstory) may be lacking one or more essential components. Also, 
the species has seldom been found when these areas of apparently 
suitable habitat have been searched. For example, on April 5, 2009, as 
a followup to the 2009 report, Hansen (2009), with assistance from 
Service biologists, conducted a survey for Tehachapi slender 
salamanders in San Emigdio Canyon (within the privately owned Wind 
Wolves Preserve located on the south side of Interstate Highway 5 and 
northwest of Fort Tejon) and in Johnson Canyon of Fort Tejon SHP. 
Although these areas included north-facing slopes that visually 
appeared similar to habitat at known occurrences, no Tehachapi slender 
salamanders were found. Also, during an extensive study on Tejon Ranch, 
only one individual Tehachapi slender salamander was found in the 77 
drainages surveyed (Dudek 2008, p. 6-5). The one individual that was 
found in Monroe Canyon is a new occurrence of the species.
    The lack of success in finding salamanders in potentially suitable 
habitat may simply be a function of the species not being at the 
surface on the day the search was conducted. However, it is also likely 
that the habitat was not actually occupied because it only had the most 
general habitat requirements but was missing some important feature 
required by the species. Therefore, we believe that it is overly 
speculative to assume that suitable habitat can be readily identified 
and that habitat that appears to be suitable is in fact occupied.

Population Sizes and Trends

    The populations of occupied canyons have not been determined, and 
we are not aware of any information on actual population trends. The 
best available information indicates that the number of occurrences has 
remained relatively stable (Hansen 2009, pp. 3-5, 11, 12). One 
occurrence (Tehachapi Pass) has been extirpated as a result of road 
construction, and five new occurrences (Monroe Canyon, Tollhouse 
Canyon, Indian Creek, an unnamed canyon south of Indian Creek, and 
Silver Creek) have been found.

Current Status

    The Tehachapi slender salamander has been listed as threatened by 
the State of California since June 1971 (CDFG 2009, p. 7). The species 
has a global heritage ranking of G2, meaning that the species is 
classified by NatureServe as globally imperiled (NatureServe 2009, p. 
1; Hansen 2009, p. 2). The Tehachapi slender salamander is considered 
sensitive by BLM (2006, p. 2) and the U.S. Forest Service (2005, p. 
78).

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations 
at 50 CFR part 424 set forth procedures for adding species to the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. An ``endangered 
species'' is any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. A ``threatened species'' is any 
species which is likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Under section 4(a)(1) of the ESA, a species may be determined to 
be endangered or threatened based on any of the following five factors:
    (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range;
    (B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes;
    (C) Disease or predation;
    (D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
    (E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued 
existence.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the exposure of the species to the factor to determine whether 
the species responds to the factor in a way that causes actual impacts 
to the species. If there is exposure and the species responds 
negatively, the factor may be a threat and we then attempt to determine 
how significant a threat it is. If the threat is significant, it may 
drive or contribute to the risk of extinction of the species such that 
the species warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms 
are defined by the Act.
    In making our 12-month finding, we considered and evaluated all 
scientific and commercial information in our files, including 
information received during the public comment period that ended June 
22, 2009.

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

    Under Factor A, we consider whether the Tehachapi slender 
salamander is threatened by the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range by growth and 
development of human communities, road construction, mining, domestic 
livestock grazing, and flood control projects (Nichols 2006, p. 6). We 
will evaluate each of these threats for both the Caliente Canyon 
population and Tehachapi Mountains population of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander.
    Like other plethodontids, Tehachapi slender salamanders require 
moisture to maintain the permeability of their skin for gas exchange 
for respiration (Feder 1983, p. 295). This physiological requirement 
limits the time during which they are active at the soil's surface to 
relatively brief, rainy periods between the late fall and early spring 
(Hansen 2009, p. 2; Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694). These salamanders 
forage and breed during periods of surface activity (Feder 1983, p. 
296). During the remainder of the year, they retreat into talus or 
rocky substrates, or deep under fallen logs or leaf litter, which 
provide refuge from the climatic extremes of the Tehachapi and Sierra 
Nevada Mountains (Hansen 2009, p. 2).
    Given its physiology and life history, this species may be 
negatively affected by disturbances that remove or reduce surface and 
soil moisture, relative humidity, or suitable rocky and leafy 
substrates. Disturbances that reportedly impact Tehachapi slender 
salamanders through habitat removal and degradation include residential 
and commercial development, livestock grazing, road construction, 
mining, and flood control projects (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 693; 
Hansen and Stafford 1994, pp. 254-255; Jennings 1996, pp. 928-929). 
Construction associated with residential and commercial development, 
new roads, and mines can remove habitat and can also cause erosion that 
washes away the substrates of talus, woody debris, and leaf litter that 
the Tehachapi slender salamander uses as refugia. The removal and 
degradation of habitat can also cause habitat fragmentation, which 
would require individuals to travel longer distances between suitable 
habitat patches during brief periods of suitable climate to find mates. 
In addition, these activities, along with flood control

[[Page 62906]]

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

[[Page 62907]]

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

[[Page 62908]]

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

[[Page 62909]]

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

[[Page 62910]]

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

[[Page 62911]]

programs; no livestock grazing is allowed. A narrow, paved road lies at 
the base of the occupied slope but does not cross any habitat, and 
there are no plans to widen or change this road. As such, we do not 
believe that impacts from the road (if any) threaten the existence of 
the species in the area. No future land use changes on Fort Tejon SHP 
are planned that would affect the Tehachapi slender salamander (Bylin 
in litt. 2009, p. 1).
    In summary, based on the best scientific and commercial information 
available, we conclude that current ranch-wide activities do not pose a 
threat to the Tehachapi Mountains population of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander and its habitat, nor do we anticipate such activities will 
pose a threat in the future. We also conclude that the proposed TMV 
development will avoid known occurrences of the species and all 
occupied habitat (i.e., occupied canyon segments that make up the range 
of the species) on Tejon Ranch (see ``Tehachapi Mountains Population'' 
section under Factor A) and is not likely to cause any significant 
indirect impacts to the Tehachapi Mountains slender salamander or its 
habitat now or in the future.
Summary of Factor A
    Livestock grazing occurs throughout the species' range (with the 
exception of Fort Tejon SHP), and depending on the intensity, grazing 
has the potential to degrade Tehachapi slender salamander habitat 
through trampling, soil scraping, and compaction, which can cause 
surface soil erosion and desiccation. However, habitat degradation in 
the range of the salamander is notable at only a few occurrences in 
Caliente Canyon. Road construction can destroy Tehachapi slender 
salamander habitat, but no new road construction is planned for either 
Caliente Canyon or the other occupied canyons that make up the Caliente 
Canyon population, and roads planned for the TMV project avoid occupied 
habitat. Erosion from existing roads through Caliente Canyon may be 
having a localized effect in a few areas in the occupied portion of the 
canyon, but the overall impact on the range of the Caliente Canyon 
population is at most minimal. There has been no mining activity within 
the Caliente Canyon area for almost 20 years, and there are no plans 
for mining to start again in the foreseeable future.
    The one new residential and commercial development planned within 
the range of the species is proposed on Tejon Ranch. Tejon Ranch's 
proposed TMV development would remove 108 ac (44 ha) of potentially 
suitable habitat based on a habitat suitability model. However, the 108 
ac (44 ha) are not known to be occupied by the species, and TMV is 
designed to avoid all occupied habitat and all known occurrences on 
Tejon Ranch. Indirect effects from development (e.g., construction-
associated impacts (lighting, noise, vibrations), increased human 
presence, predators, soil erosion, runoff, and edge effects) are not 
expected to rise to a point that would threaten the Tehachapi Mountains 
population of the species. We are also not aware of any existing or 
planned flood control projects within the range of the species. For 
these reasons, we conclude that cattle grazing, roads, mining, flood 
control projects, and commercial and residential development do not 
constitute a substantial threat to the Tehachapi slender salamander 
throughout its range now and are not likely to pose a substantial 
threat in the future. Therefore, we conclude that the Tehachapi slender 
salamander is not threatened or endangered throughout all of its range 
by the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment 
of its habitat or range.

Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes

    We do not have any information that overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a threat to the 
Tehachapi slender salamander. Therefore, we have no information to 
suggest that the Tehachapi slender salamander is threatened or 
endangered throughout all of its range now, or within the future, by 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes.

Factor C: Disease or Predation

    Little is known about predators of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander. The only known predator of the species is the ring-necked 
snake; although turkeys and pigs, present on Tejon Ranch, are known to 
consume amphibians. However, we have no evidence that turkeys and pigs 
are threatening Tehachapi slender salamanders on Tejon Ranch, and there 
is no evidence that they are affecting the salamanders' habitat; 
therefore, we do not consider them a threat to the species.
    Potential indirect effects from residential and commercial 
development within or near Tehachapi slender salamander habitat could 
include an increase in human and introduced predator presence. This 
could potentially be the case for the Tehachapi Mountains population of 
the Tehachapi slender salamander, as indirect, long-term potential 
effects from the TMV project would include an increase in human and 
introduced predator presence on the Tejon Ranch. For example, there may 
be an increase in passive outdoor recreation by adults and children, 
and their pets (e.g., cats). The increase in human presence may also 
increase the population of native amphibian predators, including 
raccoons (Procyon lotor) and various species of corvids (such as crows 
and jays). However, coyotes may also be more abundant near development, 
and as discussed previously, the abundance of cats and raccoons has 
been found to be much lower where coyotes occur (Crooks and 
Soul[eacute] 1999, p. 563). The species' nocturnal and subfossorial 
behavior may also reduce potential impacts from predation by corvids.
    There are no reports of the Tehachapi slender salamander being 
infected with any disease. However, related species have been found to 
suffer from Chytridiomycosis, a skin infection. Chytridiomycosis is 
described as an epidermal infection of amphibians caused by the chytrid 
fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). Chytridiomycosis has been 
implicated in mass mortalities, population declines, and extinctions of 
some amphibian species, but species appear to vary in their 
susceptibility to the disease (Blaustein et al. 2005, p. 1460; Ouellet 
et al. 2005, p. 1431). The chytrid fungus requires moisture for 
survival, and is most likely transmitted to amphibians by contact with 
infected water or other amphibians (Johnson and Speare 2003, p. 922). 
Chytridiomycosis was thought to be restricted to species using aquatic 
habitat and surface water; however, Cummer et al. (2005, p. 248) 
reported the first case of the chytrid fungus infecting a strictly 
terrestrial salamander. The infected Jemez Mountains salamander 
(Plethodon neomexicanus), a completely terrestrial species endemic to 
the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico, suggests that the chytrid fungus can 
survive in terrestrial habitats (Cummer et al. 2005, p. 248). The 
authors note the origin of the pathogen is unknown, but hypothesize the 
Jemez Mountains salamander may have been directly or indirectly 
infected by a sympatric aquatic amphibian carrying the pathogen (Cummer 
et al. 2005, p. 248). Further, these findings suggest that more 
amphibians are at risk of contracting the chytrid fungus than was 
previously believed.
    Indirect effects from livestock activities may include the risk of 
aquatic disease transmission, such as chytrid,

[[Page 62912]]

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

Factor D: Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    In determining whether the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms constitutes a threat to the Tehachapi slender salamander, we 
focused our analysis on existing Federal and State laws and regulations 
that apply to the species and its habitats, and that could potentially 
address any possible significant threats identified under the other 
Factors. If a threat is minor, listing may not be warranted even if 
existing regulatory mechanisms provide little or no protection to 
counter the threat. Regulatory mechanisms may preclude the need for 
listing if such mechanisms are judged to adequately address the 
threat(s) to the species such that listing is not warranted. 
Conversely, threats on the landscape are exacerbated when not addressed 
by existing regulatory mechanisms, or when the existing mechanisms are 
inadequate (or not adequately implemented or enforced).
Federal Protections

National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.), as amended (NEPA), requires that all activities undertaken, 
authorized, or funded by Federal agencies be analyzed for potential 
impacts to the human environment prior to implementation. Under NEPA, 
all Federal agencies are

[[Page 62913]]

required to formally document and publicly disclose the environmental 
impacts of their actions and management decisions. Documentation for 
NEPA is provided in an environmental impact statement, an environmental 
assessment, or a categorical exclusion, and may be subject to 
administrative or judicial appeal. NEPA does not require that adverse 
impacts be mitigated. NEPA is required for projects with a Federal 
nexus (i.e., projects that require a Federal permit, receive Federal 
funding, or are implemented by a Federal agency). Actions with no 
Federal nexus are not required to comply with this law. For actions 
with a Federal nexus, NEPA would apply regardless of the location of 
the action within the range of the species. Our review finds that there 
are no significant threats to the species on lands with a Federal nexus 
for any of the four other Factors.

Clean Air Act

    The Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) directs the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and enforce 
regulations to protect the general public from exposure to airborne 
contaminants that are known to be hazardous to human health. In 2007, 
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that gases that cause global warming are 
pollutants under the Clean Air Act, and that the EPA has the authority 
to regulate carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases (Massachusetts 
et al. v. EPA 2007 [Case No. 05-1120]).
    The EPA published a regulation to require reporting of greenhouse 
gas emissions from fossil fuel suppliers and industrial gas suppliers, 
direct greenhouse gas emitters, and manufacturers of heavy-duty and 
off-road vehicles and engines (74 FR 56260; October 30, 2009). The 
rule, effective December 29, 2009, does not require control of 
greenhouse gases; rather it requires only that sources above certain 
threshold levels monitor and report emissions. On December 7, 2009, the 
EPA found under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act that the current 
and projected concentrations of six greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 
threaten public health and welfare. EPA's finding itself does not 
impose requirements on any industry or other entities, but is a 
prerequisite for any future regulations developed by the EPA. At this 
time, it is not known what regulatory mechanisms will be developed in 
the future as an outgrowth of EPA's finding or how effective they would 
be in addressing climate change. Therefore, the Clean Air Act and its 
existing implementing regulations do not currently address climate 
change effects on wildlife, plants, and ecosystems. However, our status 
review did not reveal information that indicates that climate change is 
a significant threat to the Tehachapi slender salamander now or within 
the foreseeable future (see Factor E).

Federal Land Policy and Management Act

    As noted earlier, three occurrences of the Caliente Canyon 
population of Tehachapi slender salamander are on BLM land, while there 
are no occurrences of the Tehachapi Mountains population on Federal 
land. Although strongly oriented toward multiple use, the Federal Land 
Policy and Management Act of 1976, which is BLM's organic act, requires 
that public lands be managed in a manner that will protect the quality 
of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and 
atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where 
appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their 
natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and 
wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor 
recreation, human occupancy and use. Typically, land management plans 
are renewed every 15 to 20 years (Kuritsubo in litt. 2010a, p. 1). This 
law does not require specific protection for the Tehachapi slender 
salamander against potential threats that may occur on BLM land, such 
as impacts from grazing. One of the three occurrences on BLM land shows 
some moderate, localized habitat degradation from cattle trampling, as 
discussed under Factor A. However, our status review did not reveal 
information that indicates that livestock grazing is a significant 
threat to the Tehachapi slender salamander throughout its range (see 
Factor A).

Sensitive Species Designation by the Bureau of Land Management

    As noted earlier, the Tehachapi slender salamander is classified by 
BLM as a sensitive species. As stated in BLM's Manual, Section 6840, 
BLM Sensitive Species are managed to promote their conservation and to 
minimize the likelihood and need for listing under the Act (Kuritsubo 
in litt. 2009a, p. 1). BLM's Bakersfield, California Field Office 
implements BLM's National and State policy directives (California BLM 
Manual supplement 6840.2) by evaluating projects for potential 
Tehachapi slender salamander habitat prior to implementing or 
authorizing activities that may affect the species (Kuritsubo in litt. 
2009a, pp. 1-2). If potential habitat is present, then BLM designs the 
project or places stipulations on the authorization such that impacts 
to salamander habitat are avoided and/or minimized (Kuritsubo in litt. 
2007, p. 1). BLM has screened and surveyed for Tehachapi slender 
salamander habitat for several projects on their lands that fall within 
the range of the species as part of NEPA compliance.
    Two of the three Tehachapi slender salamander occurrences located 
on BLM land are within an existing grazing allotment (Kuritsubo in 
litt. 2010b, p. 1); the third location on BLM land is in an area that 
is not leased for grazing (BLM 2011, p. 1). BLM is required by Federal 
grazing regulations (43 CFR 4100) to periodically (approximately every 
5 to 10 years) evaluate all grazing allotments. If grazing is 
determined to have adverse impacts to Tehachapi slender salamander 
habitat, BLM regulations require that BLM take action to modify the 
grazing management to ensure that the negative impact is addressed 
(Kuritsubo 2009b, pers. comm.). As described in Factor A, we did not 
find that cattle grazing and trampling are significant threats to the 
Caliente Canyon population of the Tehachapi slender salamander or its 
habitat. BLM's land use management plan for this area is in the process 
of being updated, and is still in draft. All alternatives in the draft 
plan include measures to provide habitat for sensitive species, 
including the Tehachapi slender salamander (Kuritsubo in litt. 2010a, 
p. 1). There are no plans for the allotment to change within the next 
15 to 20 years (Kuritsubo in litt. 2010a, p. 1; Kuritsubo in litt. 
2009b, p. 1; Kuritsubo 2009b, 2010, pers. comm.).
    BLM's organic act and designation of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander as a sensitive species provide some protection for the 
species where it occurs on BLM land. However, the benefits to the 
species are limited because BLM land within the range of the salamander 
is limited to the Caliente Canyon population and makes up only a small 
portion (3 of 24 occupied occurrences, or 12.5 percent) of the species' 
entire range.
State Protections in California

California Endangered Species Act

    The Tehachapi slender salamander is listed as threatened under CESA 
(CDFG 2009, p. 7). CESA provides protections for the Tehachapi slender 
salamander both through the prohibition against take of State-listed 
species without authorization (i.e., 2081 incidental take permit) and 
the requirement that any

[[Page 62914]]

take authorized under the statute must be fully mitigated (14 CCR Sec.  
783.4). Under CESA, private landowners who wish to implement projects 
that would result in take of State-listed species must obtain a 2081 
permit. Similar to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered 
Species Act, 2081 permit applicants must develop an HCP that explains 
how the impacts of taking Tehachapi slender salamanders would be fully 
mitigated. HCPs developed to support a 2081 permit request would 
include conservation measures, often in the form of habitat 
conservation, to address the loss of Tehachapi slender salamanders. In 
our experience working with the CDFG in reviewing HCPs on private land 
in support of incidental take permit applications under CESA and the 
Federal Endangered Species Act, such plans require measures to avoid, 
minimize, or mitigate the impacts of the taking, including mortality 
resulting from habitat removal.
    CESA offers protections for the Tehachapi slender salamander on 
private and State-owned land, comprising the majority of lands that are 
known to be occupied by the species (i.e., 21 of the 24 occupied 
occurrences or 87.5 percent). CESA does not necessarily constrain 
activities on the small portion (12.5 percent) of occupied Tehachapi 
slender salamander habitat on Federal lands within the Caliente Canyon 
population. However, as noted above, regulations are in place that 
provide some protection to Tehachapi slender salamander habitat on BLM 
land.

California Environmental Quality Act

    Another State law that may address threats to the Tehachapi slender 
salamander is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA 
requires review of any project that is undertaken, funded, or permitted 
by the State or a local governmental agency. If significant effects are 
identified, the lead agency has the option of requiring mitigation 
through changes in the project or to decide that overriding 
considerations make mitigation infeasible (CEQA section 21002). In the 
latter case, projects may be approved that cause significant 
environmental impacts, including impacts to listed species and their 
habitat. Protection of listed species through CEQA is, therefore, 
dependent upon the discretion of the lead agency involved.
    Tejon Ranch's proposed TMV project has undergone CEQA review. The 
TMV Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) found that construction 
activities could result in significant impacts to the Tehachapi 
Mountain population of the Tehachapi slender salamander without the 
implementation of specific species and habitat avoidance and mitigation 
measures (ICF Jones and Stokes 2009, pp. 4.4-102, 4.4-156) (see 
discussion under Factor A). However, based on our own analysis 
(described in Factor A) we do not concur with the EIR's conclusions 
regarding significant impacts to the species, and find that the project 
design avoids direct impacts, and any indirect impacts that may occur 
would not likely rise to a level that would threaten the species.
    CEQA applies to the entire range of the species. As of the date of 
this finding, we are not aware of any other projects proposed or 
planned within the range of the Caliente Canyon population that would 
require CEQA analysis.
Summary of Factor D
    Twenty of the known occupied occurrences of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander occur on privately owned land, three occur on BLM land and 
one occurs on State land. Almost all of the private land and two of the 
three areas on BLM lands (the third area is not part of a BLM 
allotment) are primarily used for grazing. We did not find that grazing 
poses a significant threat to the Tehachapi slender salamander or its 
habitat and thus do not consider existing regulatory mechanisms, 
including CEQA, CESA, NEPA, FLPMA, and BLM's classification of the 
Tehachapi slender salamander as a sensitive species, inadequate to 
address the impacts of grazing on the species and its habitat. If such 
threats were to emerge in the future due to a change in grazing 
intensity, then CEQA and CESA would apply on private land and require 
authorization for take of Tehachapi slender salamander. Additionally, 
NEPA, FLPMA, and BLM regulations and policies would apply on Federal 
land and require that potential impacts from grazing or any other 
development be identified and measures implemented to avoid or minimize 
such impacts.
    The TMV project within Tejon Ranch is the one planned residential 
and commercial development proposed within the vicinity of known 
occurrences (5 out of 24 occupied occurrences or approximately 20.8 
percent) in the foreseeable future (Kern County in litt. 2009, pp. 1-
9). The TMV project has been designed to avoid all known occurrences 
and occupied habitat of the Tehachapi slender salamander and to 
minimize any indirect effects on the species and its habitat.
    In summary, we conclude that the threats to the Tehachapi slender 
salamander and its habitat on Federal, State, and private lands from 
grazing and other existing uses, and on private lands from proposed 
development are low. Existing Federal regulatory mechanisms provide 
protection for the species on the small portion of Tehachapi slender 
salamander habitat on BLM lands, and existing State laws provide 
protection on State and private lands from these threats. We did not 
find the current limitations of implementing the Clean Air Act to be a 
significant threat to the Tehachapi slender salamander. We did not find 
any threats to the Tehachapi slender salamander associated with Factors 
B or C that would warrant protection through a regulatory mechanism. 
Climate change and stochastic events pose potentially minor threats to 
the species (see Factor E); however, the current limitations of 
regulatory mechanisms addressing these potential threats do not pose a 
significant threat to the species now or in the foreseeable future. 
Therefore, we conclude that the species is not threatened now or in the 
future throughout its range by the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms.

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued 
Existence of the Species

    Under Factor E, we consider whether climate change and stochastic 
events threaten the Tehachapi slender salamander. Stochastic events are 
rare, chance events such as epidemics; prolonged drought; and large, 
severe wildfires.
Climate Change
    The term ``climate'' refers to an area's long-term average weather 
patterns, or more specifically as the mean and variation of surface 
variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind, whereas 
``climate change'' refers to any change in climate over time, whether 
due to natural variability or human activity (Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007, pp. 6, 871). Although changes in climate 
occur continuously over geological time, changes are now occurring at 
an accelerated rate. For example, at continental, regional, and ocean-
basin scales, recent observed changes in long-term trends include: a 
substantial increase in precipitation in eastern parts of North America 
and South America, northern Europe, and northern and central Asia; 
declines in precipitation in the Mediterranean, southern Africa, and 
parts of southern Asia; and an increase in intense tropical cyclone 
activity in

[[Page 62915]]

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

[[Page 62916]]

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

[[Page 62917]]

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

[[Page 62918]]

occupied canyon areas) and the Tehachapi Mountains, which are prone to 
forest fires, for thousands of years. Therefore, we conclude that 
forest fires are a concern, but do not rise to the level of a 
significant threat to the Caliente Canyon and Tehachapi Mountains 
populations of the Tehachapi slender salamander.
Summary of Factor E
    Because of the rarity and limited dispersal ability of the species, 
genetic stochasticity is a concern. However, we do not have any 
evidence of genetic bottlenecks or inbreeding depression to indicate 
that genetic stochasticity is a significant threat. Nor do we have any 
information to indicate that demographic stochasticity or a disease 
outbreak is likely to be a significant threat in the future. 
Environmental stochasticity, particularly wildfire, is a concern; 
however, we do not believe that this rises to a level that threatens 
the persistence of the species over the long-term.
    Changes in climate can have a variety of direct and indirect 
impacts on species such as the Tehachapi slender salamander, and can 
exacerbate the effects of other threats. However, there is a great deal 
of uncertainty as to how climate change may affect the Tehachapi 
slender salamander, and any prediction about the potential impact of 
climate change on the Tehachapi slender salamander will be highly 
speculative. However, with those uncertainties in mind, we believe 
that, although some loss of habitat in the more exposed portions of the 
canyons currently occupied by the salamander will occur because of 
climate change, habitat will remain in the lower, most-shaded portions 
to support the salamander and in some cases the salamander may be able 
to shift within the canyons in response to climate change.
    A species may also be affected by more than one threat in 
combination. Within the preceding review of the five listing factors, 
we have identified several threats that could have interrelated impacts 
on the Tehachapi slender salamander. For example, potential suitable 
habitat may be lost or altered as a result of a combination of 
development (Factor A) and effects of climate change (Factor E). 
Likewise, predation (Factor C) in combination with a stochastic event 
(Factor E), such as a forest fire could result in a major loss of 
individuals in one or more populations. However, as we discuss above, 
regardless of its source, we do not believe that the threats discussed 
above, either individually or in combination, are of sufficient 
imminence, intensity or magnitude to affect the status of the Tehachapi 
slender salamander.
    We conclude that the best available information concerning Factor E 
indicates that the Tehachapi slender salamander is not threatened 
individually or cumulatively by the effects of climate change or 
demographic, genetic, or environmental stochasticity. Therefore, we 
conclude that the Tehachapi slender salamander is not threatened or 
endangered throughout all of its range now or in the future by other 
natural or manmade factors.

Finding

    We have assessed the best scientific and commercial information 
available regarding threats faced by the Tehachapi slender salamander. 
We have reviewed the petition, scientific literature, information 
available in our files, and all information submitted to us following 
our 90-day petition finding (74 FR 18336; April 22, 2009). We also 
consulted with recognized Tehachapi slender salamander experts, Federal 
land managers, and local governments, and arranged for a recognized 
Tehachapi slender salamander expert to assess potential threats to the 
habitat and range of the species relative to current and planned land 
uses and occurrences of the species.
    Potential threats include development, road construction, mining, 
domestic livestock grazing, introduced species, and flood control 
projects. Based on the best available information, we find that the 
evidence supports a finding that listing the Tehachapi slender 
salamander is not warranted.
    While only two Tehachapi slender salamander populations are known, 
information in our files does not indicate whether these populations 
are in decline, stable, or increasing; however, the Caliente Canyon 
population is now known to be made up of five populations, rather than 
the previously known single population (Sweet in litt. p. 1). The best 
available information indicates that this species is naturally rare. 
While rare species may face threats from normal population fluctuations 
due to predation, disease, changing food supply, and stochastic 
(random) events, our evaluation of the best available information 
indicates that these potential threats do not threaten the continued 
existence of the Tehachapi slender salamander.
    The range of the salamander within the Caliente Canyon area is 
primarily on land used for grazing, an activity for which data shows 
only minor to moderate signs of degradation from livestock use. Some 
localized habitat at 3 of the 18 occurrences (approximately 16.7 
percent) show signs of moderate impact from cattle trampling; however, 
habitat in good to fair condition that would support the species 
remains at the 3 occurrences. There are no proposed projects associated 
with residential or commercial development, road construction, or 
mining anywhere near known occurrences within Caliente Canyon.
    The primary land use within the range of the Tehachapi Mountains 
population is also livestock grazing, and we do not have any 
information that indicates that use by cattle has resulted in 
significant habitat degradation of any of the five canyons known to be 
occupied by this population. Tejon Ranch is planning a large-scale 
residential and commercial development project, TMV. However, the TMV 
development envelope is designed to avoid known salamander occurrences 
and all occupied habitat within the species range for the Tehachapi 
Mountains population. In a worst-case scenario, 2.8 percent of the 
potentially suitable habitat for the species on the Tejon Ranch will be 
lost to development. Indirect impacts from the TMV project are expected 
to be restricted to the immediate vicinity of development well away 
from all occupied habitat and known occurrences of the species. 
Therefore, we believe that the development is not a significant threat 
to the species.
    We do not have any indication that flood control projects occur or 
are planned to occur within either the Caliente Canyon or Tehachapi 
Mountains area.
    The impact of climate change is a concern for the species, and 
although there is uncertainty, we believe that some loss of habitat in 
the more exposed portions of the canyons that are currently occupied by 
the salamander will occur because of climate change. However, we also 
believe that habitat will remain in the lower, most-shaded portions of 
canyons to support the salamander and in some cases the salamander may 
be able to shift within the canyon in response to climate change. 
Because of the rarity and limited dispersal ability of the species, 
genetic stochasticity is also a concern. However, we do not have any 
evidence of genetic bottlenecks or inbreeding depression to indicate 
that genetic stochasticity is a significant threat.
    There are regulatory mechanisms in place, such as CESA, CEQA, and 
BLM's special status designation for the

[[Page 62919]]

species, that provide adequate protections from threats for both 
populations of the species.
    In summary, the main activity in the range of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander at the present time is cattle grazing, which is likely to 
remain the only activity within the range of the Caliente Canyon 
population. We have determined that the impacts of grazing are limited 
to a few areas in Caliente Canyon, and sufficient habitat to support 
the species remains in these areas; few impacts from grazing have been 
observed in the canyons known to be occupied by the Tehachapi Mountains 
population. Therefore, we have determined that cattle grazing is not a 
significant impact to the species now or in the foreseeable future. 
Second, we have determined the proposed residential and commercial 
development on Tejon Ranch will not have a significant impact on the 
species because the footprint of the development has been designed to 
avoid all known occurrences of the salamander and does not overlap with 
any habitat that is likely occupied. Third, we have determined that 
indirect impacts from the proposed development will not be significant 
because they are not likely to extend far enough from the proposed 
development footprint to affect known occurences or occupied habitat 
and because the salamander is above ground for only a few months of the 
year and remains under talus and fallen logs when it is at the surface. 
Fourth, although climate change is a concern, we have determined that 
the impacts of climate change will not be significant because there is 
some uncertainty as to how the climate in the area where the species 
occurs will change and that sufficient habitat will remain to support 
the species. Finally, we have determined that the cumulative impacts of 
all of the five factors on the species will not be significant because, 
based on the best available information, the interrelated current and 
anticipated impacts of development, road construction, mining, domestic 
livestock grazing, introduced species, flood control projects, climate 
change, and stochastic events do not threaten the Tehachapi slender 
salamander. Considering all of the identified impacts in combination, 
sufficient habitat will remain to support the species.
    Therefore, on the basis of the best scientific and commercial 
information available, we find that the species is not at risk of 
extinction across its range now or in the foreseeable future and as a 
result find that listing the species range-wide as threatened or 
endangered under the Act is not warranted at this time.

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments

    After assessing whether the species is threatened or endangered 
throughout its range, we next consider whether a Distinct Vertebrate 
Population Segment (DPS) or whether any significant portion of the 
Tehachapi slender salamander's range is in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so within the foreseeable future.

Distinct Population Segment

    As previously noted, we have determined that there are two separate 
populations of the Tehachapi slender salamander. Under section 4(a)(1) 
of the Act, we must evaluate five threat factors to determine whether a 
species should be listed as endangered or threatened. Section 3(16) of 
the Act defines ``species'' to include ``any subspecies of fish or 
wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment (DPS) of any 
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature'' 
(16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). To interpret and implement the DPS portion of the 
definition of a species under the Act and Congressional guidance, the 
Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service published an 
interagency Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 
Population Segments under the Act (DPS Policy) on February 7, 1996 (61 
FR 4722). The DPS Policy allows for more refined application of the Act 
that better reflects the conservation needs of the taxon being 
considered and avoids the inclusion of entities that may not warrant 
protection under the Act.
    Under our DPS Policy, we consider three elements in a decision 
regarding the status of a possible DPS as endangered or threatened 
under the Act. We apply them similarly for additions to the List of 
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife and Plants (List), reclassification, 
and removal from the List. They are: (1) discreteness of the population 
segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon; (2) the significance 
of the population segment to the taxon to which it belongs; and (3) the 
population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's 
standards for listing (whether the population segment is, when treated 
as if it were a species, endangered or threatened).

Analysis for Discreteness

    Under the DPS policy, a population segment of a vertebrate taxon is 
considered to be discrete if it meets one of the following conditions:
    (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the same 
taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or 
behavioral factors. Quantitative measures of genetic or morphological 
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.
    (2) It is delimited by international governmental boundaries within 
which differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat, 
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. We note that the 
standard set forth in the DPS policy is that a DPS be ``markedly 
separated'' from other populations--thus, while absolute separation is 
not required, there must be sufficient separation such that ``large 
numbers'' of individuals are not migrating between populations.
Markedly Separated From Other Populations of the Taxon
    The Caliente Canyon and Tehachapi Mountains populations of the 
Tehachapi slender salamander both meet the discreteness element of the 
DPS policy. The general region where the Tehachapi slender salamander 
occurs consists of semi-arid terrain containing localized areas of 
mesic habitat favorable to salamanders (Hansen in litt. 2009a, p. 13). 
The Caliente Canyon group of occurrences is isolated from the Tehachapi 
Mountains occurrences by a minimum of 13 mi (21 km) of rugged terrain, 
much of which is dry, unsuitable habitat (Hansen in litt. 2009a, p. 
11). There is no evidence of movement between the Caliente Canyon and 
Tehachapi Mountains populations due to the sedentary nature of the 
species, and the distance and rugged terrain between them (Hansen in 
litt. 2009a, p. 11). In addition, genetic studies show that the 
Caliente Canyon and Tehachapi Mountains populations have been isolated 
from each other for over a million years (Hansen in litt. 2009a, p. 11; 
Hansen 2009b pers. comm.; Jockusch 1996, p. 91; Jockusch in litt. 
2009f, p. 2).
    Further, we have no evidence of breeding and gene flow between the 
Caliente Canyon population and the Tehachapi Mountains population. 
Genetic exchange between these populations is prevented by the distance 
and lack of suitable movement corridors between them (Hansen 2009a, 
pers. comm.). Hansen suggests that interbreeding of Tehachapi slender 
salamanders between occupied canyons within the two populations rarely 
occurs due to a number of factors, including: patchy distribution of 
Tehachapi slender salamanders, distance between occupied habitat, lack 
of suitable habitat corridors between occupied canyons, and the 
sedentary

[[Page 62920]]

characteristics of the salamanders (Hansen 2009b pers. comm.).
    In addition to the distance and the physical and genetic isolation 
between the two populations, there are reported differences in 
morphology (appearance) and habitat between the Caliente Canyon 
population and the population found in the Tehachapi Mountains 
(Jockusch and Wake 2002, p. 383; Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694). As 
stated in the DPS policy, ``Quantitative measures of genetic or 
morphological discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation.'' 
For example, Tehachapi slender salamanders in Caliente Canyon tend to 
have more noticeable brick-red/copper coloration, and tend to be larger 
with proportionately larger tails than salamanders living in the 
Tehachapi Mountains (Hansen 2009b pers. comm.; Hansen in litt. 2009d, 
p. 1). Tehachapi slender salamanders in the Caliente Canyon area occur 
at much lower elevations (1,804 ft (550 m)) than those in the Tehachapi 
Mountains (3,100 ft (945 m)) (Hansen 2009, p. 1; Sweet in litt. 2011, 
p. 1). Tehachapi slender salamanders in Caliente Canyon are more often 
found under rocks and talus. On the other hand, salamanders in the 
Tehachapi Mountains are more often found under leaves, woody debris, 
and talus (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694). Based on the physical 
separation of the two populations and the evidence that they do not 
interbreed, including differences in genetics and morphology, we find 
that the Caliente Canyon and Tehachapi Mountains populations are 
discrete.
International Border Issues
    A population segment of a vertebrate species may be considered 
discrete if it is delimited by international governmental boundaries 
across which differences in control of exploitation, management of 
habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are 
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. Given that the 
range of the species as a whole lies entirely within the United States 
borders, international border issues do not apply in this situation.
    In summary, available information on the Tehachapi slender 
salamander indicates that the Caliente Canyon population and Tehachapi 
Mountains population are markedly separated from one another by 
distance, gene flow, and to a lesser degree, morphology and habitat use 
and, therefore, meet the criteria for being discrete. If a population 
segment is considered discrete pursuant to one or more of the 
conditions described in our DPS policy, its biological and ecological 
significance will be considered in light of Congressional guidance.

Analysis of Significance

    If a population segment is considered discrete under one or more of 
the conditions described in our DPS policy, its biological and 
ecological significance will be considered in light of Congressional 
guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used ``sparingly'' while 
encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In making this 
determination, we consider available scientific evidence of the 
discrete population segment's importance to the taxon to which it 
belongs. Since precise circumstances are likely to vary considerably 
from case to case, the DPS policy does not describe all the classes of 
information that might be used in determining the biological and 
ecological importance of a discrete population. However, the DPS policy 
does provide four possible reasons why a discrete population may be 
significant. As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR 4722), this 
consideration of the population segment's significance may include, but 
is not limited to, the following:
    (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological 
setting unusual or unique to the taxon;
    (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would 
result in a significant gap in the range of a taxon;
    (3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents the 
only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant 
elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic range; or
    (4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs markedly 
from other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
    A population segment needs to satisfy only one of these criteria to 
be considered significant. Furthermore, the list of criteria is not 
exhaustive; other criteria may be used as appropriate.
Ecological Setting
    The Caliente Canyon and Tehachapi Mountains populations are 13 mi 
(21 km) apart, and we would not generally expect that ecological 
differences would occur in that short distance, and the habitat of the 
two populations is similar. However, as discussed previously, the range 
of the Caliente Canyon population is as much as 1,300 ft (396 m) lower 
in elevation than that of the Tehachapi Mountains population. This 
elevational difference exposes the two populations to different 
climatic conditions. For example, the lower Caliente Canyon populations 
experience higher temperatures for a longer period of time than any of 
the Tehachapi Mountains populations, and snowfall occurs less often and 
remains on the ground for shorter periods of time at the lower 
elevations. These differences are likely to result in differences in 
the length and timing of surface activity between the two populations. 
There are also minor differences in either the material available on 
the surface or the surface material selected by the two populations, 
with the Caliente Canyon population most often found under rocks and 
talus, while the Tehachapi Mountains population is more often found 
under leaves, woody debris, and talus (Hansen and Wake 2005, p. 694). 
Although differences exist in the ecological setting of the two 
populations, we do not find these differences to be great enough to be 
considered unusual or unique for the taxon.
Gap in the Range
    Because the species consists of only two, discrete populations that 
constitute 47 percent and 53 percent, respectively, of the species 
known range, the loss of either the Caliente Canyon population to the 
north or the Tehachapi Mountains population to the south would create a 
substantial gap in the range of the species.
Whether the Population Represents the Only Surviving Natural Occurrence 
of the Taxon
    Both populations of the Tehachapi slender salamander are in 
entirely natural settings, and there are no populations that have been 
introduced outside the range of the species and there are no captive 
populations. Consequently, this factor is not applicable to our 
determination regarding significance.
Marked Differences in Genetic Characteristics
    As discussed previously, a high level of divergence (greater than 5 
percent) in mtDNA exists between the Caliente Canyon and Tehachapi 
Mountains populations (Jockusch in litt. 2009e, p. 1; Jockusch in litt. 
2009f, pp. 1-2). However, mtDNA represents only five females of the two 
populations (Jockusch in litt. 2009e, p. 1). Jockusch's (in litt. 
2009d, p. 1) preliminary findings on nuclear DNA (based on only two 
individuals), which represents both sexes, found less divergence than 
with mtDNA. Although this research indicates that there may be genetic 
differences between the two populations, because of the small

[[Page 62921]]

sample size, the available information is too inconclusive and limited 
for us to find that the two populations are markedly genetically 
different from each other.

Conclusion of Distinct Population Segment Review

    We find that, because there are only two populations of the 
species, the loss of either would result in a significant gap in the 
overall range of the species. However, we do not find that either 
population represents the only surviving natural occurrence or that 
either population is markedly genetically different. Therefore, because 
each population meets one of the considerations for significance in our 
DPS policy, we find that both the Caliente Canyon and Tehachapi 
Mountains populations are significant under the policy.
    The Caliente Canyon and the Tehachapi Mountains populations of the 
Tehachapi slender salamander are both discrete and significant. The two 
populations have been physically separated by distance and barriers 
such as dry, unsuitable habitat for over a million years, and there is 
no evidence of gene flow between the two. The two populations are each 
significant because loss of either one would result in a substantial 
gap in the range of the species. For these reasons, we find that the 
Caliente Canyon population and the Tehachapi Mountains population each 
constitute a distinct population segment of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander.

Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and implementing regulations 
at 50 CFR part 424 set forth procedures for adding species to the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. An ``endangered 
species'' is any species in danger of extinction throughout all or a 
significant portion of its range. A ``threatened species'' is any 
species which is likely to become an endangered species within the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. In making this finding, we summarize below information regarding 
the status and threats to the two DPS's of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander in relation to the five factors in section 4(a)(1) of the 
Act. A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened 
species due to one or more of the five factors described in section 
4(a)(1) of the Act. In making our 12-month finding, we considered and 
evaluated all scientific and commercial information in our files, 
including information received during the public comment period that 
ended June 22, 2009.
Factor A: The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or 
Curtailment of the Species' Habitat or Range
    Because the Factor A analysis for the entire range of the species 
specifically discussed these threats for the Caliente Canyon 
population, the same analysis applies for the Caliente Canyon DPS. 
Likewise, the analysis of threats under Factor A for the Tehachapi 
Mountains population, equally applies to the Tehachapi Mountains DPS. 
The threats are briefly summarized below for each DPS. Please refer to 
the Factor A analysis for the entire range of the species for details.

Summary of Factor A of the Caliente Canyon DPS

    Overall, 4 out of 18 occurrences showed relatively localized signs 
of moderate disturbance from cattle grazing, residential use, or 
erosion from a nearby road. Disturbance specifically associated with 
cattle trampling was seen at 3 out of 18 occurrences (approximately 
16.7 percent). However, sufficient habitat in good-to-fair condition to 
support the species remains at all 4 locations, while all of the 
habitat at the other 14 occurrences is in good to fair condition. No 
new road construction is planned within the range of the Caliente 
Canyon population; however, erosion associated with an existing road in 
Caliente Canyon is affecting habitat in a few localized areas. Mining 
activity within the Caliente Canyon area is not occurring, and there 
are no confirmed plans for mining to start again in the foreseeable 
future. In addition, there are no plans for new residential or 
commercial development within the Caliente Canyon DPS of the species. 
We are also not aware of any flood control projects within the range of 
the DPS or any planned flood control projects. For these reasons, we 
conclude that cattle grazing, roads, mining, flood control projects, 
and commercial and residential development do not constitute a 
substantial threat to the Caliente Canyon DPS of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander. Therefore, we conclude that this DPS is not threatened or 
endangered throughout all of its range within the future by the present 
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat 
or range.

Summary of Factor A of the Tehachapi Mountains DPS

    Four of the five canyons (five of the six known occurrences) 
occupied by the Tehachapi Mountains DPS are found on Tejon Ranch. 
Current land use on Tejon Ranch in the area where occupied canyons and 
potential habitat for the Tehachapi slender salamander are located 
includes cattle grazing, farming, and recreation. We know that cattle 
grazing and rooting from pigs and turkeys can affect the habitat of 
Tehachapi slender salamander through trampling and erosion. However, 
habitat at all known occurrences on Tejon Ranch is in good condition, 
despite the presence of cattle, turkeys, and pigs (Hansen in litt. 
2010a, p. 3; Miller in litt. 2010b, p. 4). Therefore, we have no 
evidence that indicates that cattle grazing or rooting from pigs and 
turkeys are threats to the Tehachapi Mountains DPS on Tejon Ranch.
    None of the four occupied canyons fall within the 7,860-ac (3,181-
ha) proposed TMV development envelope, and all occupied habitat and 
occurrences are will be at least 0.5 mi (0.8 km) away from any 
development. Although Tejon Ranch's planned TMV project may remove 108 
ac (44 ha) of potentially suitable habitat, the TMV project is designed 
to avoid all occupied habitat and all known occurrences of the 
Tehachapi slender salamander within the project development area and 
footprint. Because the TMV development is designed to avoid direct 
impacts to the DPS, and indirect effects from the development 
(including increased presence of humans, pets, and predators) are not 
considered to be a significant threat to the species, the proposed 
residential and commercial development is not considered a threat to 
the Tehachapi Mountains DPS.
    There are no known flood control projects or mining projects 
occurring or planned to occur within the range of this DPS. In 
addition, there are no known threats of habitat removal or degradation 
for the species on Fort Tejon SHP. Therefore, we conclude that this DPS 
is not threatened or endangered throughout all of its range within the 
future by the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range.
Factor B: Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    We are not aware of any information that indicates overutilization 
for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is a 
threat to the Caliente Canyon DPS or the Tehachapi

[[Page 62922]]

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

Summary of Factor D

    As discussed in Factors A, B, C, and E, we did not find a specific 
factor that threatens the continued survival of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander within the Caliente Canyon or the Tehachapi Mountains DPSs. 
Therefore, we find that neither DPS is threatened by the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms throughout its range now, or within the 
future.

[[Page 62923]]

Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Continued 
Existence of the Species

    As discussed in the analysis of threats under Factor E for the 
Tehachapi slender salamander across its entire range, the petitioner 
stated the Tehachapi slender salamander is threatened by climate change 
caused by anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and by 
stochastic events due to its small, narrowly distributed populations 
(Nichols 2006, p. 8).

Climate Change

    The possible effects to the populations within the Caliente Canyon 
and Tehachapi Mountains areas, as discussed in Factor E for the 
species, are identical for each DPS. Please refer to the Factor E 
discussion for the species for further details. Based on a review of 
available information, we believe that some loss of habitat in the more 
open, exposed parts of occupied canyons will occur as a result of 
climate change. However, we also believe that habitat will remain in 
the lower, most-shaded portions of canyons to support the salamander 
and in some cases the salamander may be able to shift within the canyon 
in response to climate change. Therefore, we find that neither the 
Caliente Canyon nor Tehachapi Mountains DPS of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander is threatened by climate change throughout its range, now or 
within the future.

Stochastic Events

    Under this factor we explore whether three risks, represented by 
demographic, genetic, and environmental stochastic events, are 
substantive to threaten the continued existence of the Tehachapi 
slender salamander within the Caliente Canyon and the Tehachapi 
Mountains DPSs. Because of the rarity and limited dispersal ability of 
the species, genetic stochasticity is a concern. However, we do not 
have any evidence of genetic bottlenecks or inbreeding depression to 
indicate that genetic stochasticity is a significant threat. Nor do we 
have any information to indicate that demographic stochasticity or a 
disease outbreak is likely to be a significant threat in the 
foreseeable future. Environmental stochasticity (particularly wildfire) 
is a concern; however, we do not believe that this rises to a level 
that threatens the persistence of the species over the long-term.
    A species may also be affected by more than one threat in 
combination. Within the preceding review of the five listing factors, 
we have identified several threats that could have interrelated impacts 
on the Tehachapi slender salamander. For example, potential suitable 
habitat may be lost or altered as a result of a combination of 
development (Factor A) and effects of climate change (Factor E). 
Likewise, predation (Factor C) in combination with a stochastic event 
(Factor E), such as a forest fire could result in a major loss of 
individuals in one or more populations. However, as we discuss above, 
regardless of its source, we do not believe that the threats discussed 
above, either individually or in combination, are of sufficient 
imminence, intensity or magnitude to affect the status of either the 
Caliente Canyon or Tehachapi Mountains DPS of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander.
    Therefore, we conclude that neither the Caliente Canyon nor the 
Tehachapi Mountains DPS is threatened or endangered throughout its 
range within the future by other natural or manmade factors.

Finding for Distinct Population Segments

    As previously mentioned for the finding for the species as a whole, 
we have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding threats faced by the Caliente Canyon 
DPS and the Tehachapi Mountains DPS of the Tehachapi slender 
salamander. We have reviewed the petition, scientific literature, 
information available in our files, and all information submitted to us 
following our 90-day petition finding (74 FR 18336; April 22, 2009). We 
also consulted with recognized Tehachapi slender salamander experts, 
Federal land managers, and local government, and arranged for a 
recognized Tehachapi slender salamander expert to assess potential 
threats to the habitat and range of the species relative to current and 
planned land uses and species occurrences.
    Potential threats include development, road construction, mining, 
domestic livestock grazing, introduced species, and flood control 
projects. Based on the best available information, we find that there 
is little evidence to support a finding that listing either DPS is 
warranted based on these identified threats.
    While the available information suggests that the number of 
individuals in each DPS appears to be few and that they are narrowly 
distributed, we do not have any trend data to indicate that the number 
of individuals within each DPS is in decline, stable, or increasing.
    The range of the Caliente Canyon DPS is primarily on land used for 
grazing and showed generally low signs of degradation from livestock 
trampling and erosion, with only 3 of 18 occurrences exhibiting 
moderate degradation in some portions of their habitat. There are no 
proposed projects associated with residential or commercial development 
or mining anywhere near known occurrences within Caliente Canyon.
    The primary land use within the range of the Tehachapi Mountains 
DPS is also livestock grazing, but we do not have any information that 
indicates that grazing has resulted in significant habitat degradation. 
Tejon Ranch is planning a large-scale residential and commercial 
development project, TMV. The TMV development envelope avoids all known 
occurrences and adjacent contiguous habitat, and occurs at a sufficient 
distance from the species' dispersal range. Because the DPS' confirmed 
occurrences are discretely distributed and isolated, the proposed 
development is not expected to affect movement patterns or breeding. 
The approved EIR estimates that 108 ac (44 ha) of potentially suitable 
habitat within the TMV development envelope would be lost due to 
construction. The loss of 108 ac (44 ha) is likely an overestimation of 
the amount of suitable habitat that exists, due to the constraints of 
modeling projections, but even using this 108 ac (44 ha) value as a 
worst-case assumption, only 2.8 percent of the potentially suitable 
habitat on the Tejon Ranch would be lost to development.
    Indirect effects from development--including increased human 
presence, runoff and erosion, and predators--are not expected to pose a 
significant threat to the Tehachapi Mountains DPS. Depending on the 
nature of the potential impact, the source of the impact is either far 
enough removed from any known occurrence or occupied habitat so as not 
to constitute a threat, or there is some other factor, such as the 
species' nocturnal and subfossorial behavior, that greatly reduces the 
potential threat. Therefore, impacts from development are not expected 
to threaten the Tehachapi Mountains DPS. We do not have any indication 
that flood control projects occur or are planned to occur within either 
the Caliente Canyon or Tehachapi Mountains DPSs.
    The impact of climate change is a concern for the species, and 
while there is uncertainty, we believe that some loss of occupied 
habitat will occur because of climate change in the more exposed 
portions of the canyons salamander. However, we also believe that 
habitat will remain in the lower, most-shaded portions of canyons to 
support the salamander, and in some cases the

[[Page 62924]]

salamander may be able to shift within the canyon in response to 
climate change. Because of the rarity and limited dispersal ability of 
the species, genetic stochasticity is also a concern. However, we do 
not have any evidence of genetic bottlenecks or inbreeding depression 
to indicate that genetic stochasticity is a significant threat.
    There are regulatory mechanisms in place, such as CESA, CEQA, and 
BLM's special status designation for the species, that provide adequate 
protections for both DPSs of the species given the types and minor 
degree of potential threats faced by the species. Therefore, we find 
that listing the Caliente Canyon DPS or the Tehachapi Mountains DPS as 
threatened or endangered under the Act is not warranted at this time.
    And finally, we determined that both of the DPSs are not affected 
cumulatively by all of the five factors. Therefore, based on our 
conclusions for each of the five factors singly and cumulatively, we 
find that there are no threats of sufficient imminence, intensity, or 
magnitude to cause a substantial decrease in distribution, or loss of 
viability of either DPS throughout their range. Therefore, we do not 
find that either DPS is in danger of extinction (endangered), or likely 
to become endangered or threatened throughout their range within the 
foreseeable future. Consequently, listing the Caliente Canyon DPS or 
the Tehachapi Mountains DPS as threatened or endangered under the Act 
is not warranted at this time.

Significant Portion of the Range Analysis

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

[[Page 62925]]

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

[[Page 62926]]

Tehachapi Mountains DPS where the species is in danger of extinction or 
is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.
Caliente Canyon DPS
    The Caliente Canyon DPS consists of sections of five canyons, 
totaling about 9 linear mi (14.5 km). To determine whether the Caliente 
Canyon DPS is threatened in a significant portion of its range, we 
first addressed whether any portions of the range of the DPS warrant 
further consideration. Our analysis indicates that the conservation 
status of the Caliente Canyon DPS is essentially the same throughout 
its range; there is no area within the range of the DPS where potential 
threats to this species are significantly concentrated or are 
substantially greater than in other portions of the range. And, as we 
explained in detail in our analysis of the status of the species, none 
of the threats faced by the species, alone or in combination, are 
sufficient to place it in danger of extinction now (endangered) or in 
the foreseeable future (threatened). The main potential threat to the 
Caliente Canyon DPS is livestock grazing, which occurs throughout most 
of the range of this DPS; however, the impacts of grazing to the 
species are minor and are not concentrated in any geographic portion of 
the range of the DPS. For these reasons, we find that there are no 
portions of the Caliente Canyon DPS's range that warrant further 
consideration as significant portions of the range.
Tehachapi Mountains DPS
    To determine whether the Tehachapi Mountains DPS is threatened in a 
significant portion of its range, we also first addressed whether any 
portions of the range of the DPS warrant further consideration. Our 
analysis indicates that the conservation status of the Tehachapi 
Mountains DPS is essentially the same throughout its range; there is no 
area within the range of the DPS where potential threats to this 
species are significantly concentrated or are substantially greater 
than in other portions of the range. And, as we explained in detail in 
our analysis of the status of the species, none of the threats faced by 
the species, alone or in combination, are sufficient to place it in 
danger of extinction now (endangered) or in the foreseeable future 
(threatened).
    A large development project (Tejon Ranch TMV project) is planned 
within the general vicinity of half of the occurrences of the Tehachapi 
Mountains DPS. However, the TMV development envelope is configured to 
avoid all known occurrences and occupied habitat of the species within 
this DPS. The TMV project, if implemented, will likely affect 108 ac 
(44 ha) out of the estimated 3,797 ac (1,537 ha) (or less than three 
percent) of habitat that may be suitable for the Tehachapi Mountains 
DPS on Tejon Ranch. We do not have evidence that the 108 ac (44 ha) of 
potentially suitable habitat likely to be affected by the TMV project 
is significant to the survival and recovery of the DPS. The five 
occupied canyons that make up the Tehachapi Mountains DPS are widely 
distributed across the DPS's range. We found no evidence that 
individuals of this DPS are concentrated in any geographic portion of 
the range that would increase the vulnerability of this DPS to a 
particular threat. For these reasons, we find that there are no 
portions of the Tehachapi Mountains DPS's range that warrant further 
consideration as significant portions of the range.
    We do not find that the Caliente Canyon DPS or the Tehachapi 
Mountains DPS is in danger of extinction now, nor do we find that 
either DPS is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Therefore, 
listing the Caliente Canyon DPS or the Tehachapi Mountains DPS as 
threatened or endangered under the Act is not warranted at this time.
    We request that you submit any new information concerning the 
status of, or threats to, these species to our Ventura Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section) whenever it becomes available. 
New information will help us monitor this species and encourage its 
conservation. If an emergency situation develops for this or any other 
species, we will act to provide immediate protection.

References Cited

    A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at 
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the Ventura Fish and 
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author

    The primary authors of this notice are the staff of the Ventura 
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES).

    Authority: The authority for this action is section 4 of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

    Dated: September 23, 2011.
Rowan Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-25522 Filed 10-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P