[Federal Register: February 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 26)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 6699-6774]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10fe09-11]
[[Page 6699]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Frosted Flatwoods Salamander and Reticulated
Flatwoods Salamander; Final Rule
[[Page 6700]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[FWS-R4-ES-2008-0082; MO 9921050083-B2]
RIN 1018-AU85
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Endangered Status for Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Frosted Flatwoods Salamander and Reticulated
Flatwoods Salamander
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), finalize the
listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), of
the currently threatened flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum)
into two distinct species: Frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma
cingulatum) and reticulated flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma bishopi)
due to a recognized taxonomic reclassification; determine endangered
status for the reticulated flatwoods salamander; retain threatened
status for the frosted flatwoods salamander; and designate critical
habitat for the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated
flatwoods salamander. In total, approximately 27,423 acres (ac) (11,100
hectares (ha)) in 35 units or subunits fall within the boundaries of
the critical habitat designation; 22,970 ac (9,297 ha) of critical
habitat is designated for the frosted flatwoods salamander and 4,453 ac
(1,803 ha) for the reticulated flatwoods salamander. This area is a
reduction of 3,205 ac (977 ha) from the proposed designation; 162 ac
(66 ha) less for the frosted flatwoods salamander and 3,043 ac (928 ha)
less for the reticulated flatwoods salamander. The critical habitat is
located in Baker, Calhoun, Franklin, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson,
Liberty, Santa Rosa, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington Counties in
Florida; Baker and Miller Counties in Georgia; and Berkeley,
Charleston, and Jasper Counties in South Carolina.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on March 12, 2009.
ADDRESSES: This final rule and final economic analysis are available on
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Supporting documentation we
used in preparing this final rule is available for public inspection,
by appointment, during normal business hours, at U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office, 6578 Dogwood View
Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Aycock, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View
Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; telephone: 601-321-1122; facsimile: 601-
965-4340. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD),
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document consists of: (1) A final rule
to change the listing of the currently threatened flatwoods salamander
(Ambystoma cingulatum) to frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma
cingulatum) and reticulated flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma bishopi)
(the frosted flatwoods salamander will continue to be listed as
threatened and the reticulated flatwoods salamander is listed as
endangered); and (2) final critical habitat designations for each
species.
Previous Federal Actions
The flatwoods salamander was listed as threatened on April 1, 1999
(64 FR 15691). At that time, we found that designation of critical
habitat for the flatwoods salamander was not prudent because such
designation would not be beneficial and may increase threats to the
species. On April 1, 2005, Center for Biological Diversity, Wild South,
and Florida Biodiversity Project filed a lawsuit against the Secretary
of the Interior alleging failure to designate critical habitat for the
flatwoods salamander. In a court-approved settlement agreement, we
agreed to re-evaluate the need for critical habitat for the species
and, if prudent, submit a proposed designation of critical habitat to
the Federal Register by January 30, 2007, and submit a final critical
habitat rule for publication in the Federal Register by January 30,
2008. We published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for
the flatwoods salamander in the Federal Register on February 7, 2007
(72 FR 5856). After that proposed rule published, new information
became available on its taxonomic classification and additional threats
to occupied habitat that necessitated a reevaluation of the proposed
rule. On January 25, 2008, the court-approved settlement agreement was
modified to require that a revised proposed critical habitat
designation for the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated
flatwoods salamander be submitted for publication in the Federal
Register on or before July 30, 2008, with the final critical habitat
rule to be submitted for publication in the Federal Register by January
30, 2009. The revised proposed rule was signed on and delivered to the
Federal Register on July 30, 2008, and it subsequently published on
August 13, 2008 (73 FR 47258). We also published supplemental
information on the proposed rule to maintain the status of the frosted
flatwoods salamander as threatened (73 FR 54125; September 18, 2008).
Public Comments
Due to the nature of the proposed rule, we received combined
comments from the public on the listing action and the critical habitat
designation. Therefore, we have addressed these issues in a single
comment section. In this final rule, we have presented the listing
analysis first, followed by the analysis for designation of critical
habitat. All public comments and our responses to them are presented
under the Critical Habitat section.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the taxonomic reclassification of the flatwoods salamander into two
species, the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods
salamander, the determination of the status of these two species, and
the designation of critical habitat for both species. For more
information on the biology and ecology of flatwoods salamanders, refer
to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on April 1,
1999 (64 FR 15691). For information on our proposed determination of
endangered status for the reticulated flatwoods salamander, and on the
proposed designation of critical habitat for the frosted flatwoods
salamander and the reticulated flatwoods salamander, refer to the
proposed rule published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2008 (73
FR 47258).
Taxonomic Classification
The original listing rule (64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999) described
the geographic range of the flatwoods salamander as it was known at
that time. The range for the species included occurrences across the
lower southeastern Coastal Plain in Florida, Georgia, and South
Carolina. Taxonomic revision resulted from research done by Pauly et
al. (2007, pp. 415-429) that suggested a taxonomic reclassification of
the species by splitting the flatwoods salamander into two species--the
frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated
[[Page 6701]]
flatwoods salamander. The Apalachicola River drainage forms a
geographic barrier between the two species. This drainage is a common
site for east-west phylogeographic breaks in many other taxa as well.
For this reason, the reclassification of the flatwoods salamander into
two species is currently accepted by the scientific community and by
the Service. We hereby amend the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reflect this revision to taxonomy.
Goin (1950, p. 299) recognized two distinct subspecies of flatwoods
salamander based on morphological and color pattern variation. This
reclassification between the eastern and western portions of the
salamander's range was later discounted in an analysis by Martof and
Gerhardt (1965, pp. 342-346) and for the past 40 years the concept of a
single undifferentiated species persisted. Pauly et al. (2007, pp. 415-
429) conducted molecular and morphological analyses to test whether the
flatwoods salamander, as originally described, followed a pattern of
east-west disjunction at the Apalachicola River as has been described
in many other species. They were able to demonstrate this predicted
phylogeographic break. Based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), morphology,
and allozymes, they recognize two species of flatwoods salamanders,
frosted flatwoods salamander to the east of the Apalachicola drainage
and reticulated flatwoods salamander to the west. The Apalachicola
River is probably the cause of major disjunctions in species
distributions due to the repeated marine embayments during the Pliocene
and Pleistocene interglacials that likely caused a barrier to gene
flow.
In the Pauly et al. (2007, pp. 415-429) analyses, the use of mtDNA
splits flatwoods salamander populations into two major clades east and
west of the Apalachicola-Flint rivers. Samples from Jackson and Liberty
Counties, Florida, are informative because, geographically, they are
located on opposite sides of the river but are phylogenetically distant
with respect to mtDNA sequence divergence. In contrast, geographically
distant populations on the same side of the Apalachicola River are very
closely related. Their morphological analyses also support a taxonomic
boundary at the Apalachicola-Flint rivers. Salamanders on opposite
sides of this boundary significantly differed in both body shape and
size based on multivariate analyses. The number of costal grooves
(grooves along the side body of salamanders used in species
identification), snout-vent length, six additional morphometric traits,
and sexual dimorphisms in tail length, height, and width are all
significantly different between the two taxa. Due to the importance of
the tail in ambystomatid courtship and fertilization, tail differences
may be particularly important (Duellman and Trueb 1986, pp. 64-66).
Allozyme data presented in Shaffer et al. (1991, pp. 290-291, 302)
also indicated differences between salamanders on either side of the
Apalachicola River. Their results demonstrated these populations have
fixed-allele differences, consistent with the mtDNA and morphological
results.
The frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders can be
differentiated from each other by the use of several morphological
characters (Pauly et al. 2007, pp. 424-425). The frosted flatwoods
salamander generally has more costal grooves and tends to be larger
than the reticulated flatwoods salamander. For individuals of the same
size, the frosted flatwoods salamander has longer forelimbs and hind
limbs and a larger head. Male frosted flatwoods salamanders have longer
tails than those of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. The belly
pattern of the frosted flatwoods salamander consists of discrete white
spots on a dark background, while the spots are less distinct in the
reticulated flatwoods salamander giving a ``salt and pepper''
appearance (Goin 1950, pp. 300-314). The back pattern of the
reticulated flatwoods salamander has a more net-like appearance than
the frosted flatwoods salamander, as the common names imply.
In summary, in the Regulation Promulgation section of this
document, we present a taxonomic change reflecting the reclassification
of flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) to frosted flatwoods
salamander (A. cingulatum) and reticulated flatwoods salamander (A.
bishopi).
Listing of the Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander
History of the Action
On December 16, 1997, we published a proposed rule to list the
flatwoods salamander as a threatened species (62 FR 65787). We
published the final rule to list the species on April 1, 1999 (64 FR
15691). On August 13, 2008, we published the proposal to list the
reticulated flatwoods salamander, currently known as the flatwoods
salamander west of the Apalachicola-Flint Rivers, as a new species (73
FR 47258).
Species Information
As far as we currently know, the life history traits and habitat
use of both the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated
flatwoods salamander are similar to those previously described for the
flatwoods salamander. Both species of flatwoods salamanders are
moderately sized salamanders that are generally black to chocolate-
black with fine, irregular, light gray lines and specks that form a
cross-banded pattern across their backs (back pattern more net-like in
the reticulated flatwoods salamander). The frosted flatwoods salamander
generally tends to be larger than the reticulated flatwoods salamander,
as described above. Adults are terrestrial and live underground most of
the year. They breed in relatively small, isolated ephemeral ponds
where the larvae develop until metamorphosis. Post-metamorphic
salamanders migrate out of the ponds and into the uplands where they
live until they move back to ponds to breed as adults. Both species of
flatwoods salamander are endemic to the lower southeastern Coastal
Plain and occur in what were historically longleaf pine-wiregrass
flatwoods and savannas (Palis and Means 2005, pp. 608-609).
The historical range of what is now considered the reticulated
flatwoods salamander included parts of the States of Alabama, Florida,
and Georgia, which are in the lower Coastal Plain of the southeastern
United States west of the Apalachicola-Flint Rivers. We have compiled
26 historical (pre-1990) records for the reticulated flatwoods
salamander.
In Alabama, there are five historical localities for the
reticulated flatwoods salamander, all in the extreme southern portion
of the State in Baldwin, Covington, Houston, and Mobile Counties.
Surveys have been conducted at numerous sites since 1992; however, no
reticulated flatwoods salamanders have been observed in Alabama since
1981 (Jones et al. 1982, p. 51; Godwin 2008).
Two historical records for the reticulated flatwoods salamander are
known from Georgia, one each in Baker and Early Counties. Site visits
to the areas in the vicinity of these two records have indicated that
there is no longer suitable habitat for flatwoods salamanders at these
localities. The area of the Baker County record has been cleared for
agriculture (LaClaire 1994b). The upland habitat surrounding the Early
County record has been converted to home sites and agricultural fields
(Seyle 1994, p. 4). Four new reticulated flatwoods salamander breeding
ponds
[[Page 6702]]
have been discovered since 1990. One pond is on the Mayhaw Wildlife
Management Area owned by the State of Georgia in Miller County. Three
ponds are on private property in Baker County. Currently, two
reticulated flatwoods salamander populations are supported by these
breeding sites in Georgia.
Nineteen historical (pre-1990) records for the reticulated
flatwoods salamander are known for Florida. Reticulated flatwoods
salamander breeding has been documented at only five (26 percent) of
these sites since 1990. Extensive surveys throughout the range of the
Ambystoma cingulatum, conducted prior to the original listing in 1999,
resulted in identifying 39 additional breeding sites. Thirty-one (80
percent) of these sites are located in Okaloosa and Santa Rosa
Counties, primarily on Department of Defense lands. Currently, 18
populations of the reticulated flatwoods salamander are known from
Florida.
The combined data from all survey work completed since 1990 in
Florida and Georgia indicate there are 20 populations of the
reticulated flatwoods salamander. Some of these populations are
inferred from the capture of a single individual. Nine (45 percent) of
the known reticulated flatwoods salamander populations occur, at least
in part, on public land. Of these, Department of Defense lands in
Florida harbor four populations of the reticulated flatwoods salamander
at Eglin Air Force Base, Hurlburt Field, and Navy Outlying Landing
Field Holley. State and local agencies in Florida and Georgia partially
manage habitat for five additional populations and monitor breeding
ponds. In Florida, Pine Log State Forest harbors a single population;
Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFLWMD) and Blackwater
River State Forest share management of a single population; NWFLWMD and
Yellow River Marsh Preserve State Park share management of most of
another property supporting an additional population; and the Santa
Rosa County School Board owns a portion of the habitat supporting a
single population. In Georgia, the Mayhaw Wildlife Management Area
supports a single population. Eleven (55 percent) reticulated flatwoods
salamander populations are solely on private land.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander
Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated
to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures
for adding species to Federal lists. 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). The original listing rule for the
flatwoods salamander (64 FR 15691) contained a discussion of these five
factors, as did the proposed rule (73 FR 47258; August 13, 2008) and
supplemental information (73 FR 54125; September 18, 2008). Only those
factors relevant to the proposed reclassification of the reticulated
flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma bishopi Goin, 1950) from threatened to
endangered are described below:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The major threat to the reticulated flatwoods salamander is loss of
both its longleaf pine-slash pine flatwoods terrestrial habitat and its
isolated, seasonally ponded breeding habitat. The combined pine
flatwoods (longleaf pine-wiregrass flatwoods and slash pine flatwoods)
historical area was approximately 32 million acres (ac) (12.8 million
hectares (ha)) (Outcalt 1997, p. 4). This area has been reduced to 5.6
million ac (2.27 million ha) or approximately 18 percent of its
original extent (Outcalt 1997, p. 4). These remaining pine flatwoods
(non-plantation forests) areas are typically fragmented, degraded,
second-growth forests (Outcalt 1997, p. 6). Conversion of pine
flatwoods to intensively managed (use of heavy mechanical site
preparation, high stocking rates, and low fire frequencies) slash or
loblolly plantations often resulted in degradation of flatwoods
salamander habitat by creating well-shaded, closed-canopied forests
with an understory dominated by shrubs or pine needles (Outcalt 1997,
pp. 4-6; Palis 1997, pp. 61-63). Disturbance-sensitive ground cover
species, such as wiregrass (Aristida stricta [= A. beyrichiana] Kesler
et al. 2003, p. 9), dropseed (Sporobolus spp.), and perennial forbs
were either greatly reduced in extent or were replaced by weedy
pioneering species (Moore et al. 1982, p. 216; Outcalt and Lewis 1988,
pp. 1-12; Hardin and White 1989, pp. 243-244). In a study conducted by
Hedman et al. (2000, p. 233), longleaf pine plots had significantly
more herbaceous species and greater herbaceous cover than loblolly or
slash pine plots. For example, wiregrass is often lost from a site when
habitat is converted from longleaf pine forest to other habitat types
using common mechanical site preparation methods (Outcalt and Lewis
1988, p. 2). Loss of wiregrass is considered an indicator of site
degradation from fire suppression or soil disturbance (Clewell 1989;
pp. 226, 230-232). Flatwoods salamanders are unlikely to persist in
uplands with a disturbed, wiregrass-depauperate ground cover (Palis
1997, p. 63).
Forest management that includes intensive site preparation may
adversely affect flatwoods salamanders directly and indirectly (Means
et al. 1996, p. 426). Bedding (a technique in which a small ridge of
surface soil is elevated as a planting bed) alters the surface soil
layers, disrupts the site hydrology, and often eliminates the native
herbaceous ground cover. This can have a cascading effect of reducing
the invertebrate community that serves as a food source for flatwoods
salamander adults. Post-larval and adult flatwoods salamanders occupy
upland flatwoods sites where they live underground in crayfish burrows,
root channels, or burrows of their own making (Goin 1950, p. 311; Neill
1951, p. 765; Mount 1975, pp. 98-99; Ashton and Ashton 2005, pp. 63,
65, 68-71). The occurrence of these underground habitats is dependent
upon protection of the soil structure. Intensive site preparation
destroys the subterranean voids and may result in entombing, injuring,
or crushing individuals.
Ecologists consider fire suppression the primary reason for the
degradation of remaining longleaf pine forest habitat. The disruption
of the natural fire cycle has resulted in an increase in slash and
loblolly pine on sites formerly dominated by longleaf pine, an increase
in hardwood understory, and a decrease in herbaceous ground cover
(Wolfe et al. 1988, p. 132). Although reticulated flatwoods salamanders
have been found at sites with predominately loblolly or slash pine, the
long-term viability of populations at these sites is unknown. On public
lands, prescribed burning is a significant part of habitat management
plans. However, implementation of prescribed burning has been
inconsistent due to financial constraints and limitations of weather
(drought, wind direction, etc.) that restrict the number of
opportunities to burn.
These alterations of the longleaf pine ecosystem, as a result of
incompatible forest practices, have caused historic losses of
reticulated flatwoods salamander habitat. Conversion of native pine
flatwoods to plantation forests is not considered a significant threat
at this time. Forecasts indicate that most new plantation forests will
come from converting agricultural fields (Wear and Greis 2002, p. 47).
Nevertheless, we have documented the historic extirpation of at least
one previously known population each from Gulf and Jackson Counties in
Florida,
[[Page 6703]]
over the last 4 decades because of habitat degradation on lands
currently managed as pine plantations. In addition, ponds surrounded by
pine plantations and protected from the natural fire regime may become
unsuitable as reticulated flatwoods salamander breeding sites due to
canopy closure and the resultant reduction in emergent herbaceous
vegetation needed for egg deposition and larval development sites
(Palis 1997, p. 62). In addition, lack of fire within the pond during
periods of dry-down may result in chemical and physical (vegetative)
changes that are unsuitable for the salamander (Palis 1997, p. 62).
Lack of fire in the ecotone may result in the development of a thick
shrub zone making it physically difficult or impossible for adult
salamanders to enter the breeding ponds (Ripley and Printiss 2005, pp.
1-2, 11).
Land use conversions to urban development and agriculture
eliminated large areas of pine flatwoods in the past (Schultz 1983, pp.
24-47; Stout and Marion 1993, pp. 422-429; Outcalt and Sheffield 1996,
pp. 1-5; Outcalt 1997, pp. 1-6). Urbanization and agriculture have
resulted in the loss of one reticulated flatwoods salamander population
from each of the following counties: Mobile and Baldwin Counties,
Alabama; Escambia, Jackson, and Washington Counties, Florida; and Early
County, Georgia. Two known populations have been extirpated from Santa
Rosa County, Florida. State forest inventories completed between 1989
and 1995 indicated that flatwoods losses through land use conversion
were still occurring (Outcalt 1997, pp. 3-6). Urbanization in the
panhandle of Florida and around major cities is reducing the available
pine forest habitat. Wear and Greis (2002, pp. 47, 92) identify
conversion of forests to urban land uses as the most significant threat
to southern forests. They predict that the South could lose about 12
million ac (4.9 million ha) of pine forest habitat to urbanization
between 1992 and 2020. Several relatively recent discoveries of
previously unknown reticulated flatwoods salamander breeding sites in
Santa Rosa County, Florida, have been made in conjunction with wetland
surveys associated with development projects (Cooper 2008a). No
reticulated flatwoods salamanders have been observed at these degraded
sites since completion of the projects (Cooper 2008a).
In addition to the loss of upland forested habitat, the number and
diversity of small wetlands where reticulated flatwoods salamanders
breed have been substantially reduced. Threats to breeding sites
include alterations in hydrology, agricultural and urban development,
road construction, incompatible silvicultural practices, shrub
encroachment, dumping in or filling of ponds, conversion of wetlands to
fish ponds, domestic animal grazing, soil disturbance, and fire
suppression (Vickers et al. 1985, pp. 22-26; Palis 1997, p. 58; Ashton
and Ashton 2005, p. 72). Hydrological alterations, such as those
resulting from ditches created to drain flatwoods sites or fire breaks
and plow lines, represent one of the most serious threats to
reticulated flatwoods salamander breeding sites. Lowered water levels
and shortened hydroperiods at these sites may prevent successful
flatwoods salamander recruitment because larval salamanders require 11
to 18 weeks to reach metamorphosis and leave the ponds (Palis 1995, p.
352).
Drought conditions exacerbate other threats and, although they
represent a natural phenomenon, can lower the resiliency of populations
to withstand other man-made threats. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
has documented multiple drought periods in the southeastern United
States since the 1890s (USGS 2000, p. 1). Significant drought periods
documented in the last three decades are: 1980-1982, 1984-1989, 1998-
2002, 2005-2008 (USGS 1991, p. 163; USGS 2000, p. 1; Seager et al.
2008, pp. 2, 22). Although a naturally occurring condition, drought
presents additional complications for a species, like reticulated
flatwoods salamander, which has been extirpated from most of its
historic range and for which populations are represented by single
ponds. Palis et al. (2006, p. 5-6) conducted a study in Florida on a
population of the closely related frosted flatwoods salamander during a
drought from 1999-2002. This study found three consecutive years of
reproductive failure and a steadily declining adult immigration to
breed at the site as the drought progressed.
Taylor et al. (2005, p. 792) noted that wide variation in
reproductive success is common among pond-breeding amphibians that
depend on seasonal filling of these areas, but that adult persistence
may buffer against fluctuations in that success, particularly for
species that are long-lived. Although Palis et al. (2006, p. 6)
suggested that the flatwoods salamander may only live about 4 years
(based on captive animals), we are currently unsure of the exact
lifespan of wild individuals. Other sources have suggested 10 years may
represent a maximum lifespan (Jensen 2008). As a result, it is
difficult to predict how long adults could persist in the landscape
without a successful breeding event to replenish the population.
However, Taylor et al. (2005, pp. 792, 796) constructed a model, based
on extensive population data available for the marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), to look at how many years of reproductive failure
would be required to result in local extinction of pond-breeding
salamanders (with varying lifespans) and found that even without total
reproductive failure, populations required moderate to high upland
post-metamorphic survival to persist. Catastrophic failure in this
study created fluctuations in the population, raised the threshold of
survival required to achieve persistence, and imposed the possibility
of extinction even under otherwise favorable environmental conditions.
Reproductive failure was closely tied to hydrologic conditions;
insufficient or short hydroperiod was the primary cause for complete
failure. In addition, early filling of the ponds could also facilitate
the establishment of invertebrate or vertebrate predators before
hatching of the eggs (Taylor et al. 2005, p. 796).
Palis et al. (2006, p. 6-7) discussed the necessity of protecting
clusters of flatwoods salamander breeding sites, especially those with
different hydrologic regimes, to guard against population declines at
any one breeding site resulting from random events, such as droughts
(Palis 2006, p. 7). A cluster of breeding sites represents a
metapopulation, which is defined as neighboring local populations close
enough to one another that dispersing individuals could be exchanged
(gene flow) at least once per generation. Currently, the only place
where a metapopulation exists for the reticulated flatwoods salamander
is on Eglin Air Force Base.
Habitat fragmentation of the longleaf pine ecosystem resulting from
habitat conversion threatens the survival of the reticulated flatwoods
salamander. Large tracts of intact longleaf pine flatwoods habitat are
fragmented by pine plantations, roads, and unsuitable habitat. Most
reticulated flatwoods salamander populations are widely separated from
each other by unsuitable habitat. This has been verified through recent
reviews of aerial photography and site visits to localities of
historical and current records for the species. Studies have shown that
the loss of fragmented populations is common, and recolonization is
critical for their regional survival (Fahrig and Merriam 1994, pp. 50-
56; Burkey 1995, pp. 527-540). Amphibian populations may be
[[Page 6704]]
unable to recolonize areas after local extirpations due to their
physiological constraints, relatively low mobility, and site fidelity
(Blaustein et al. 1994, pp. 60, 67-68). In the case of the reticulated
flatwoods salamander, 70 percent of populations only have one breeding
pond and if the habitat at that one site is destroyed, recolonization
would be impossible (see further discussion of metapopulation dynamics
under Factor E).
Roads contribute to habitat fragmentation by isolating blocks of
remaining contiguous habitat. They may disrupt migration routes and
dispersal of individuals to and from breeding sites. Road construction
can result in changes in hydrology and destruction of breeding ponds,
as described above. In addition, vehicles may also cause the death of
reticulated flatwoods salamanders when they are attempting to cross
roads (Means 1996, p. 2). Road construction resulted in the destruction
of a historic reticulated flatwoods salamander breeding pond in
Escambia County, Florida (Palis 1997, p. 62). A road through Eglin Air
Force Base (Eglin) and Hurlburt Field has been proposed by the
Northwest Florida Transportation Corridor Authority (NWFTCA) (NWFTCA
2007). We are currently in consultation regarding this bypass project.
The conceptually approved route for the project, as currently proposed,
places the road adjacent to or through 22 breeding sites that support
the largest reticulated flatwoods salamander population (Mittiga 2007).
However, the Service has been assured by Eglin that they will not allow
negative impacts to the salamander's habitat and that they will
continue to ensure the conservation of the reticulated flatwoods
salamander (Department of the Air Force (DoAF) 2008a, p. 1; 2008b, p.
1). The Service will work with Eglin to protect these breeding sites
which represent the only population of this species supported by more
than three breeding ponds and functioning as a metapopulation.
In summary, the loss of habitat is a significant threat to the
reticulated flatwoods salamander. This threat is compounded by current
drought conditions and the nature of pond-breeding salamanders to
undergo periodic reproductive failure. We consider this threat to be
imminent and of high magnitude because of this species' narrow range
and the rapid rate of habitat loss that is currently occurring within
the range of this species. Thirteen (65 percent) of the reticulated
flatwoods salamander populations are partly or completely on private
land where habitat continues to be degraded by management that
frequently includes fire suppression and intensive site preparation
that alters surface soil layers, disrupts site hydrology, disturbs the
ground cover, and which has the potential to entomb, injure, or crush
individual salamanders. Forest management conducted in this way is
considered incompatible for maintaining flatwoods salamander
populations. Range-wide historic losses of both upland and wetland
habitat have occurred due to conversion of flatwoods sites to
agriculture, urban development, and intensively managed pine
plantations. The remaining flatwoods habitat continues to be threatened
by fire suppression and other incompatible forest management practices,
road construction, and habitat fragmentation across the range of the
species. Localized threats to existing wetland breeding sites include
alterations in hydrology from agriculture, urban development, road
construction, and incompatible forest management; and fire suppression.
As a result, we have determined that the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the reticulated flatwoods
salamander's habitat and range represents an imminent and significant
threat to the species.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overcollecting does not appear to be a threat to the reticulated
flatwoods salamander at this time. There is no evidence of a past or
current problem with collection of this species. Consequently, we have
determined that the factor of overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to
the reticulated flatwoods salamander at this time.
C. Disease or Predation
Although disease has not been specifically documented in the
reticulated flatwoods salamander thus far, disease outbreaks with mass
mortality in other species of salamanders indicate that disease may be
a threat for this species as well (Daszak et al. 1999, p. 736). ``Red-
leg'' disease (Aeromonas hydrophila), a pathogen bacterium, caused
mortality of the mole salamander (A. talpoideum) at the breeding pond
of the reticulated flatwoods salamander in Miller County, Georgia
(Maerz 2006), and reticulated flatwoods salamanders have not been
observed at this site since the disease was reported. In addition,
Whiles et al. (2004, p. 211) found a parasitic nematode (Hedruris
siredonis, family Hedruridae) in larvae of the closely related frosted
flatwoods salamander from South Carolina and Florida. This parasite has
been found in other ambystomatids and can cause individuals to become
undersized and thin, thus reducing their fitness (Whiles et al. 2004,
p. 212). The infestations were not considered heavy and were probably
not having a negative impact on the larvae studied; however,
environmental degradation may change the dynamics between salamander
populations and normally innocuous parasites (Whiles et al. 2004, p.
212). Ranaviruses in the family Iridoviridae and the amphibian chytrid
fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) may be other potential threats,
although the susceptibility of the reticulated flatwoods salamander to
these diseases is unknown. Ranaviruses have been responsible for die-
offs of tiger salamanders throughout western North America and spotted
salamanders (A. maculatum) in Maine (Daszak et al. 1999, p. 736).
Chytrid fungus has been discovered and associated with mass mortality
in tiger salamanders in southern Arizona and California, and the Santa
Cruz long-toed salamander (A. macrodactylum croceum) (Vredenburg and
Summers 2001, p. 151; Davidson et al. 2003, p. 601; Padgett-Flohr and
Longcore 2005, p. 50). This discussion of disease in other species of
closely related salamanders indicates the potential existence of
similar threats to reticulated flatwoods salamander populations.
Exposure to increased predation by fish is a threat to the
reticulated flatwoods salamander when isolated, seasonally ponded
wetland breeding sites are changed to or connected to more permanent
wetlands inhabited by fish species not typically found in temporary
ponds. Studies of other ambystomatid species have demonstrated a
decline in larval survival in the presence of predatory fish (Semlitsch
1987, p. 481). Ponds may be modified specifically to serve as fish
ponds or sites may be altered because of drainage ditches, firebreaks,
or vehicle tracks that can all provide avenues for fish to enter the
wetlands.
Red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are potential predators
of flatwoods salamanders, especially in disturbed areas. They have been
seen in areas disturbed by the installation of drift fences at known
breeding sites of the closely related frosted flatwoods salamander
(Palis 2008). The severity and magnitude, as well as the long-term
effect, of fire ants on reticulated flatwoods salamander populations
are currently unknown.
[[Page 6705]]
In summary, diseases of amphibians in the southeastern United
States remain largely unstudied. However, given the incidence of
disease in species that could be considered surrogates for flatwoods
salamanders, the probability exists for similar infections to occur in
reticulated flatwoods salamander populations. We consider this to be an
imminent threat of moderate magnitude. Predation by fish is a historic
threat that continues to be a localized problem when ditches,
firebreaks, or vehicle ruts provide connections allowing the movement
of fish from permanent water bodies into reticulated flatwoods
salamander breeding sites. Sixty-five percent of reticulated flatwoods
salamander breeding ponds are partly or completely on private land.
This situation increases the probability of fish being introduced to a
breeding site, which would then cause the breeding habitat to become
unsuitable and result in the extinction of the population. Fire ants
also have the potential of being a localized threat, particularly in
disturbed areas. In addition, we believe that the threats described
here would also act to exacerbate other threats to the species.
Overall, we consider the threat within this factor to be imminent and
of moderate magnitude because 70 percent of reticulated flatwoods
salamander populations are supported by a single breeding pond;
diseases and fish and invertebrate predators have been found at ponds
within the species' range; and these diseases and predators are known
to cause mortality or reproductive failure in related species.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms for the protection of
the upland habitats where reticulated flatwoods salamanders spend most
of their lives. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is the primary
Federal law that has the potential to provide some protection for the
wetland breeding sites of the reticulated flatwoods salamander.
However, due to recent case law (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook
County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 531 U.S. 159 (2001);
Rapanos v. United States 547 U.S. 715 (2006)), isolated wetlands are no
longer considered to be under Federal jurisdiction (not regulatory
wetlands). Wetlands are only considered to be under the jurisdiction of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) if a ``significant nexus''
exists to a navigable waterway or its tributaries. Currently, some
Corps Districts do not coordinate with us on flatwoods salamanders and,
since isolated wetlands are not considered under their jurisdiction,
they are often not included on maps in permit applications (Brooks
2008). We are aware of two isolated wetlands that supported reticulated
flatwoods salamander populations that have been lost since 2006 under
this scenario.
Longleaf pine habitat management plans have been written for public
lands occupied by the reticulated flatwoods salamander. They include
management plans for State-owned lands and integrated natural resource
management plans (INRMPs) for Department of Defense lands. Most of the
plans contain specific goals and objectives regarding habitat
management that would benefit reticulated flatwoods salamanders
including prescribed burning. However, because multiple-use is the
guiding principle on most public land, protection of the flatwoods
salamander may be just one of many management goals including timber
production and military and recreational use.
At the State and local levels, regulatory mechanisms are limited.
Although not listed as threatened or endangered in Alabama, the
reticulated flatwoods salamander is listed among those nongame species
for which it is ``unlawful to take, capture, kill, or attempt to take,
capture or kill; possess, sell, trade for anything of monetary value,
or offer to sell or trade for anything of monetary value'' (Alabama
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 2008, p. 1). The
flatwoods salamander is listed as a threatened species in the State of
Georgia (Jensen 1999, pp. 92-93). This designation protects the species
by preventing its sale, purchase, or possession in Georgia and by
prohibiting actions that cause direct mortality or the destruction of
its habitat on lands owned by the State of Georgia (Ozier 2008). There
is only one known flatwoods salamander population on lands owned by the
State of Georgia, and that is Mayhaw Wildlife Management Area. In 2001,
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) listed
the flatwoods salamander (which would include the reticulated flatwoods
salamander) as a species of special concern (FFWCC 2007, p. 2) and
prohibited direct take except through permit. As part of the listing
process, a statewide management plan was developed for the salamander
in Florida (FFWCC 2001, p. 1-60). This plan sets an ambitious
conservation goal of maintaining at least 129 self-sustaining
populations of flatwoods salamanders (which would include both frosted
and reticulated flatwoods salamander species) in Florida. The plan also
outlines a monitoring plan for population status assessment, an
implementation strategy for the management of populations, and areas
for future research. The Alabama and Florida regulations offer no
protection against the most significant threat to the reticulated
flatwoods salamander, loss of habitat.
In summary, existing regulatory mechanisms provide little direct
protection of reticulated flatwoods salamander habitat, the loss of
which is the most significant threat to the species. Reticulated
flatwoods salamander breeding sites may in some instances come under
the jurisdiction of the Corps, but most often they are provided little
regulatory protection. These inadequacies represent range-wide historic
and known threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander on private
lands within the range. We consider this threat as imminent because the
existing regulations are not protecting against the other imminent
threats to the species. Also, this threat is of high magnitude because
of the small range of the species, and because 65 percent of
populations are not protected from further development because they are
located partially or completely on private lands.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Metapopulations are important to the long-term survival of
temporary pond breeding amphibians. In these species, such as the
reticulated flatwoods salamander, breeding ponds may differ in the
frequency of their ability to support amphibian reproduction. As a
result, extirpation and colonization rates can be a function of pond
spatial arrangement as well as local habitat quality (Marsh and Trenham
2001, p. 41). Of the 20 known reticulated flatwoods salamanders
populations, only 6 (30 percent) are supported by more than one
breeding pond and only one (5 percent) population (on Eglin-Hurlburt
Field) is supported by more than three breeding ponds. For 70 percent
(14 out of 20) of the known reticulated flatwoods salamander
populations, any one of the many threats that may render a breeding
pond unsuitable could cause the extirpation of the affected population.
Invasive plant species, such as cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica),
threaten to further degrade existing flatwoods habitat. Cogongrass, a
perennial grass native to Southeast Asia, is one of the leading threats
to the ecological integrity of native herbaceous flora, including that
in the longleaf pine ecosystem (Jose et al. 2002, p. 43). Cogongrass
can displace most of the
[[Page 6706]]
existing vegetation except large trees. Especially threatening to the
reticulated flatwoods salamander is the ability of cogongrass to
outcompete wiregrass, a key vegetative component of flatwoods
salamander habitat. Changing the species composition in this way can
alter the soil chemistry, nutrient cycling, and hydrology of an
infested site (Jose et al. 2002, p. 43). Reticulated flatwoods
salamander habitat management plans will need to address threats posed
by cogongrass and other invasive plant species and include strategies
to control them. An integrated management approach to controlling
cogongrass is outlined in Jose et al. (2002, p. 42).
Pesticides (including herbicides) may pose a threat to amphibians,
such as the reticulated flatwoods salamander, because their permeable
eggs and skin readily absorb substances from the surrounding aquatic or
terrestrial environment (Duellman and Trueb 1986, pp. 199-200).
Negative effects that commonly used pesticides and herbicides may have
on amphibians include delayed metamorphosis, paralysis, reduced growth
rate, and mortality (Bishop 1992, pp. 67-69). In addition, herbicides
used near reticulated flatwoods salamander breeding ponds may alter the
density and species composition of vegetation surrounding a breeding
site and reduce the number of potential sites for egg deposition,
larval development, or shelter for migrating salamanders. However, if
application by aerial spraying is avoided, the potential for negative
effects from pesticide and herbicide use in areas adjacent to breeding
ponds would be reduced (Tatum 2004, p. 1047). Herbicides may be a
necessary tool to reduce or eliminate woody vegetation or invasive
plants when the use of prescribed fire is not possible or effective
(Jensen 2007, Wigley 2008). Nevertheless, pesticides should not be used
in flatwoods salamander habitat unless no other habitat management tool
is available; herbicide label directions should be followed closely;
and aerial spraying should never be used as an application technique.
Under these conditions, we consider this threat to be of moderate
magnitude.
Studies of other ambystomatid species have demonstrated a decline
in larval survival in the presence of predatory fish, as mentioned
above under Factor C. One of the potential reasons for this decline may
be the negative effect resulting from these fish competing with
salamander larvae for invertebrate prey. The invertebrates found by
Whiles et al. (2004, p. 212) in a study of larval frosted and
reticulated flatwoods salamander gut contents are typical of freshwater
habitats in the Southeast that do not contain predatory fish on a
regular basis. The presence of predatory fish has a marked effect on
invertebrate communities and alters prey availability for larval
salamanders with the potential for negative effects on larval fitness
and survival (Semlitsch 1987, p. 481). Wherever connections have been
created between permanent water and flatwoods salamander ponds, such as
through installation of firebreaks or ditches, this threat from
predatory fish exists.
Studies of reticulated flatwoods salamander populations, since the
original species listing of flatwoods salamander as threatened (64 FR
15691; April 1, 1999), have been limited due to drought. Data on the
numbers of adults within existing populations do not exist. However,
given the low number of individuals encountered even when breeding is
verified, populations are likely to be very small at any given breeding
site. Small populations are at increased threat of extirpation from
natural processes (genetic isolation, inbreeding depression, and
drought), as well as the manmade threats listed above.
In summary, a variety of other natural or manmade factors
historically or currently threaten, or have the potential to threaten,
the reticulated flatwoods salamander. The loss of metapopulation
structure in the distribution of reticulated flatwoods salamander
populations was a range-wide threat that caused historic losses of this
species. It continues to be a current threat for 70 percent of the
remaining reticulated flatwoods salamander populations. Fire
suppression and inadequate habitat management continue to cause the
degradation of occupied sites, primarily on private land. Invasive
plant species probably did not have much of a historic impact on
salamander populations, but they are a range-wide current threat, and
they are likely to become more widespread and difficult to control.
Range-wide, low densities of individuals in a given population have
been a historic threat and continue to be a threat for most reticulated
flatwoods salamander populations, particularly due to past and current
drought conditions, habitat loss, population fragmentation, and
periodic reproductive failures that occur naturally in pond-breeding
amphibians. The impact that competing predators may have on the
salamander's prey base, and the threat of pesticide and herbicide use,
are less clear as historic threats but remain potential localized
threats for the species. Therefore, while we have determined that other
natural and manmade factors, such as invasive species, pesticides, and
competition for the species' prey base may threaten the reticulated
flatwoods salamander, the severity and magnitude of these threats are
not currently known. Acting in coordination with threats listed above
under Factors A through D, the threats under Factor E could increase
the severity of the other threats. In addition, small population size
is particularly detrimental when combined with habitat loss, the
ongoing drought, and the nature of this pond-breeding amphibian to
experience periodic reproductive failure.
Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the reticulated flatwoods salamander. In summary, the most
significant historical threat to the reticulated flatwoods salamander,
as listed above in Factor A, is loss of its habitat. However, a variety
of localized threats described under Factors A, C, D, and E continue to
impact the remaining reticulated flatwoods salamander populations and
their habitat. These include alterations in the hydrology of existing
wetland breeding sites (including ``ditching,'' which can result in the
introduction of predatory fish), urban development, road construction,
incompatible forest management, fire suppression, and disease. The
severity and magnitude of threats under Factor E are not currently
known. Nevertheless, we have determined that threats under this factor
will exacerbate the effects of threats due to habitat loss and drought.
As described in Factor E above, small populations are at increased
threat of extirpation from natural processes (genetic isolation,
inbreeding depression, and drought), as well as the manmade threats
listed above. Furthermore, as described in Factor D (above), existing
regulatory mechanisms provide little direct protection of reticulated
flatwoods salamander habitat, the loss of which is the most significant
threat to the species. Reticulated flatwoods salamander breeding sites
may in some instances come under the jurisdiction of the Corps, but
most often they are provided little regulatory protection. This is
likely the reason that two populations were lost recently to
development. These inadequacies of existing regulatory mechanisms
addressing habitat loss represent range-wide historic and potential
threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander.
[[Page 6707]]
Finally, there are potential localized threats from fire ants,
pesticides, and invasive plants for which the extent of impact is yet
undeterminable, but we believe they are legitimate threats due to both
their impact on surrogate species and their prevalence in the types of
habitats used by this species.
Only 20 reticulated flatwoods salamander populations are known.
Fourteen (70 percent) of these populations are supported by only one
breeding site. A population with only one breeding site has a tenuous
future just given randomly varying environmental factors without
considering the additional threats of habitat destruction and
degradation that further threaten these populations. As noted
previously, the habitat within the range of the reticulated flatwoods
salamander is currently experiencing drought conditions. Palis et al.
(2006, p. 5-6) studied a frosted flatwoods salamander population in
Florida during a drought from 1999-2002. This study documented three
consecutive years of reproductive failure and a steady decline in adult
immigration to the site for breeding as the drought progressed.
Catastrophic reproductive failure occurs even in healthy populations of
pond-breeding amphibians. When it does occur, the modeling efforts of
Taylor et al. (2005, p. 796) showed that each year of reproductive
failure raises the threshold of survival required to achieve
persistence and imposes the possibility of extirpation even under
otherwise favorable environmental conditions. Taylor et al. (2005, p.
799) reminds us that, particularly with small populations or low
population growth rates (as exists with the reticulated flatwoods
salamander), the effects of reproductive failure are made worse by
demographic stochasticity. Even in populations with multiple breeding
ponds, amphibian populations may be unable to recolonize areas after
local extirpations due to their physiological constraints, relatively
low mobility, and site fidelity (Blaustein et al. 1994, pp. 60, 67-68).
In the case of the reticulated flatwoods salamander, 70 percent of
populations have only one breeding pond. If the habitat at that site is
destroyed, recolonization would be impossible and the population
supported by that breeding pond would be extirpated. Since the early
1990s, four reticulated flatwoods salamander populations have been
lost, two populations due to urbanization and two populations due to
incompatible forest management (Palis 2006, Cooper and LaClaire 2007,
Cooper 2008b). The most robust reticulated flatwoods salamander
population remaining is located on Eglin. Continued conservation of
this locality is imperative because it represents habitat for the only
population that is supported by more than three breeding ponds and
functions as a metapopulation. In other words, this population has the
best chance of surviving demographic and environmental stochasticity
given that the distribution of breeding sites is within the dispersal
distance of adult reticulated flatwoods salamanders.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information,
we have determined that the reticulated flatwoods salamander is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range. Endangered status reflects the vulnerability of this species to
factors that negatively affect the species and its limited and
restricted habitat. Habitat loss on private lands is an imminent threat
that is compounded by a variety of other factors. Fire suppression on
private lands occupied by the reticulated flatwoods salamander
represents one of the biggest threats to the species' habitat and the
continued existence of the species on these sites. In addition, since
1999 we have lost at least two reticulated flatwoods salamander
breeding ponds due to the threat of inadequate existing regulatory
mechanisms. We believe the destruction of these ponds was a result of
the continuing threat that isolated wetlands are rarely, if ever, under
the jurisdiction of the Corps. We believe that, combined, the effect of
the historical and ongoing drought; historical, current, and projected
habitat loss and degradation; and the exacerbating effects of disease,
predation, small population size, and isolation result in the
reticulated flatwoods salamander being in danger of extinction
throughout all of its range. We believe these threats, in particular
the threats from habitat loss and drought, to be imminent and are
projected to continue at the current rate or increase in the future.
Further, we have determined that these threats are operating on the
species and its habitat with a high degree of magnitude in that they
affect the species throughout all of its range and with a high degree
of severity, as discussed above.
Listing of the Frosted Flatwoods Salamander
History of the Action
The final rule to list the flatwoods salamander as threatened was
published on April 1, 1999 (64 FR 15691). On August 13, 2008, we
published a proposed rule to reclassify the listing of the species into
two distinct species: Frosted flatwoods salamander and reticulated
flatwoods salamander due to new taxonomic information (73 FR 47258). In
that proposed rule, we provided the analysis of the threats for the
reticulated flatwoods salamander and our determination of its
endangered status. On September 18, 2008, we published a notice
providing supplemental information to the proposed rule that included
our analysis and determination to retain threatened status for the
frosted flatwoods salamander (73 FR 54125).
Species Information
Taxonomic revision resulting from research done by Pauly et al.
(2007, pp. 415-429) split the flatwoods salamander into two species--
the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods
salamander. Background information on flatwoods salamanders, a
discussion of their taxonomic status, and the five-factor analysis and
associated determination of endangered status for the reticulated
flatwoods salamander are provided above. Information provided here, and
in the analysis that follows, will only address issues specific to the
frosted flatwoods salamander.
Based on the best available information, the life-history traits
and habitat use of both the frosted flatwoods salamander and the
reticulated flatwoods salamander are similar to those previously
described for the flatwoods salamander (64 FR 15691, April 1, 1999; 73
FR 47258, August 13, 2008). However, most of our references predate
Pauly et al. (2007, p. 415) and, therefore, do not distinguish between
the two species.
Flatwoods salamanders are endemic to the lower southeastern Coastal
Plain and occur in what were historically longleaf pine-wiregrass
flatwoods and savannas. The historical range of what is now considered
the frosted flatwoods salamander included parts of the States of
Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. This area encompassed the lower
Coastal Plain of the southeastern United States along the Gulf Coast
east of the Apalachicola-Flint Rivers, across north Florida, south into
north-central Florida, and north along the Atlantic Coast through
coastal Georgia and South Carolina.
We have compiled 84 historical (pre-1990) records for the frosted
flatwoods salamander. Twenty historical records (with supporting
locality information) for the frosted flatwoods salamander are known
from eight counties in Florida. Frosted flatwoods salamander breeding
has been documented at only four (20
[[Page 6708]]
percent) of these sites since 1990. Surveys conducted since 1990 by
Federal and State agency personnel, as well as private parties, have
resulted in the identification of more than 50 additional frosted
flatwoods salamander breeding sites, including two sites in Jefferson
County, a county that previously was not known to be occupied by the
salamander. Most of these new breeding sites are located on the
Apalachicola and Osceola National Forests, and on St. Marks National
Wildlife Refuge. One site, discovered in 1998 on Tate's Hell State
Forest, has been degraded as a result of habitat modification efforts
that created a more permanently flooded wetland and flooded the ecotone
at the historic breeding pond. The upland habitat is degraded as well
with the result that the primary constituent elements (PCEs) on the
site are no longer present (Enge 2008). Fifteen populations of the
frosted flatwoods salamander are known from Baker, Franklin, Jefferson,
Liberty, and Wakulla Counties in Florida.
Thirty-four historical records for the frosted flatwoods salamander
are known from 20 counties in Georgia. Frosted flatwoods salamanders
have not been seen again at any of these sites in recent years;
however, surveys conducted since 1990 have resulted in the discovery of
23 new breeding sites. All but one of these new sites are located on
the Fort Stewart Military Installation. The one additional pond was
discovered on the Townsend Bombing Range. Currently, these breeding
sites support six frosted flatwoods salamander populations in Bryan,
Evans, Liberty, and McIntosh Counties, Georgia, all on Department of
Defense lands. The frosted flatwoods salamander is assumed to be
extirpated from 16 other counties in Georgia where it previously
occurred. However, some suitable habitat still remains on the
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and the potential exists for the
species to occur there.
Thirty historical records for the frosted flatwoods salamander are
known from five counties in South Carolina. Since 1990, metamorphic
frosted flatwoods salamanders have been documented at six (21 percent)
of these sites, and one new breeding site has been discovered.
Currently, four populations of the frosted flatwoods salamander are
known from Berkeley, Charleston, and Jasper Counties in South Carolina.
Two populations are on private land in Jasper County: One population
occurs on the Francis Marion National Forest in Berkeley County, and
one population occurs on the Santee Coastal Preserve (state-owned and
managed) in Charleston County.
The combined data from all survey work completed since 1990 in
Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina indicate there are 25 populations
of the frosted flatwoods salamander. Some of these populations are
inferred from the capture of a single individual. Twenty-two (88
percent) of the known frosted flatwoods salamander populations occur
primarily on public land. Sixteen of the populations (64 percent of
total populations of the species) on public land represent
metapopulations supported by more than one breeding site. A single
population occurs on each of the following publicly owned sites:
Osceola National Forest in Florida; Townsend Bombing Range in Georgia;
and Francis Marion National Forest and Santee Coastal Reserve in South
Carolina. In Florida, habitat supports 10 populations on Apalachicola
National Forest and 2 populations on St. Marks National Wildlife
Refuge. In Georgia, five populations occur on Fort Stewart Military
Installation. Three (12 percent) frosted flatwoods salamander
populations are solely on private land.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (Frosted Flatwoods Salamander)
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations (50
CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the
Act set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be
determined to be endangered or threatened due to one or more of the
five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The original
listing rule for the flatwoods salamander (64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999),
and the supplement to the August 2008 proposed rule (73 FR 54125;
September 18, 2008), contain a discussion of these five factors. Only
those factors relevant to the frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma
cingulatum Cope, 1867) are described below:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The major historical threat to the frosted flatwoods salamander was
loss of habitat, both its longleaf pine-slash pine flatwoods
terrestrial habitat and its isolated, seasonally ponded breeding
habitat. Refer above to Factor A under ``Summary of Factors Affecting
the Species (Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander)'' for general
information on threats to pine flatwoods habitat that also applies to
the frosted flatwoods salamander.
Degradation of the remaining frosted flatwoods salamander habitat
in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina is a current, ongoing threat,
primarily on private land. Ecologists consider fire suppression the
primary reason for the degradation of remaining longleaf pine forest
habitat. The disruption affects both the upland forested habitat of
adult salamanders and their ponded breeding habitat also required for
development of larval salamanders. Alterations of the longleaf pine
ecosystem, as a result of incompatible forest practices, have caused
the historic loss of most of the original frosted flatwoods salamander
habitat. Conversion of native pine flatwoods to plantation forests is
not considered a significant threat at this time. However, much of the
historic extirpation of frosted flatwoods populations in Florida,
Georgia, and South Carolina over the last six decades resulted from
habitat degradation on lands managed for timber extraction.
Land use conversions to housing, other development projects, and
agriculture eliminated large areas of pine flatwoods in the past
(Schultz 1983, pp. 24-47; Stout and Marion 1993, pp. 422-429; Outcalt
and Sheffield 1996, pp. 1-5; Outcalt 1997, pp. 1-6). Residential
development and conversion to agriculture have resulted in the
historical loss of one frosted flatwoods salamander population each
from Ben Hill, Berrien, Brooks, Effingham, Emanuel, and Irwin Counties,
Georgia (Seyle 1994, pp. 4-5); an additional site has been degraded in
Orangeburg County, South Carolina, and the population at this site is
also considered extirpated (LaClaire 1994a). State forest inventories
completed between 1989 and 1995 indicated that flatwoods losses through
land use conversion were still occurring (Outcalt 1997, pp. 3-6);
however, further conversions are only likely to impact three of the
populations occurring in large part on private lands or only 12 percent
of the total frosted flatwoods salamander populations.
In addition to the loss of upland forested habitat, the number and
diversity of small wetlands where frosted flatwoods salamanders breed
have been substantially reduced. Threats to breeding sites include
alterations in hydrology, agricultural and urban development, road
construction, incompatible silvicultural practices, shrub encroachment,
dumping in or filling of ponds, conversion of wetlands to fish ponds,
domestic animal grazing, soil disturbance, and fire suppression
[[Page 6709]]
(Vickers et al. 1985, pp. 22-26; Palis 1997, p. 58; Ashton and Ashton
2005, p. 72). As described above (see Species Information), the
unintentional result of hydrological restoration on Tate's Hell State
Forest was the destruction of the ephemeral nature of a reticulated
flatwoods salamander breeding site and the extinction of the salamander
population on that site.
Drought conditions exacerbate other threats, and although they
represent a natural phenomenon, can lower the resiliency of populations
to withstand other man-made threats. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
has documented multiple drought periods in the southeastern United
States since the 1890s (USGS 2000, p. 1). Among significant periods
documented in the last three decades are: 1980-1982, 1984-1989, 1998-
2002, 2005-2008 (USGS 1991, p. 163; USGS 2000, p. 1; Seager et al.
2008, pp. 2, 22). Although drought is a naturally occurring condition,
it presents additional complications for a species like the frosted
flatwoods salamander, which has been extirpated from most of its
historic range. Palis et al. (2006, p. 5-6) conducted a study in
Florida on a population of the frosted flatwoods salamander during a
drought from 1999-2002. This study found 3 consecutive years of
reproductive failure and a steadily declining adult immigration to
breed at the site as the drought progressed.
Palis et al. (2006, p. 6-7) discussed the necessity of protecting
clusters of flatwoods salamander breeding sites, especially those with
different hydrologic regimes, to guard against population declines at
any one breeding site resulting from random events, such as droughts.
Currently, 15 populations of the frosted flatwoods salamander,
occurring on public land, are supported by multiple breeding sites.
Habitat fragmentation of the longleaf pine ecosystem resulting from
habitat conversion is primarily a historical threat to the frosted
flatwoods salamander. Large tracts of intact longleaf pine flatwoods
habitat are fragmented by pine plantations, roads, and unsuitable
habitat. Although the threat of ongoing habitat fragmentation has
slowed, the effect of past habitat loss is that many frosted flatwoods
salamander populations are widely separated from each other by
unsuitable habitat. This has been verified through recent reviews of
aerial photography and site visits to localities of historical and
current records for the species. Studies have shown that the loss of
fragmented populations is common, and recolonization is critical for
their regional survival (Fahrig and Merriam 1994, pp. 50-56; Burkey
1995, pp. 527-540). Amphibian populations may be unable to recolonize
areas after local extirpations due to their physiological constraints,
relatively low mobility, and site fidelity (Blaustein et al. 1994, pp.
60, 67-68). In the case of the frosted flatwoods salamander, 36 percent
of populations have only one breeding pond. If the habitat at that site
is destroyed, recolonization would be impossible (see further
discussion of metapopulation dynamics under Factor E).
Roads have contributed to habitat fragmentation by isolating blocks
of remaining contiguous habitat. Roads disrupt migration routes and
dispersal of individuals to and from breeding sites. Road construction
can result in changes in hydrology and destruction of breeding ponds.
Highway construction and associated development resulted in the
destruction of a historic frosted flatwoods salamander breeding pond in
Chatham County, Georgia (Seyle 1994, pp. 3-4). In addition, vehicles
may also cause the death of frosted flatwoods salamanders when they are
attempting to cross roads (Means 1996, p. 2).
Off-road vehicle (ORV) use within frosted flatwoods salamander
breeding ponds and their margins severely degrades the wetland habitat.
In the Southeast, ORV use impacts habitat used by frosted flatwoods
salamanders, has the potential to cause direct mortality of individual
salamanders, and is a threat on both public and private land. On public
lands, areas may be designated as off-limits to ORV use (U.S. Forest
Service 2007, p. 19), but these restrictions are difficult to enforce.
Even a single afternoon of individuals riding their ORVs in a pond can
completely destroy the integrity of breeding sites by damaging or
killing the herbaceous vegetation and rutting the substrate (Ripley and
Printiss 2005, pp. 11-12). There is also the potential for direct
injury or mortality of salamanders by ORVs at breeding sites (Ripley
and Printiss 2005, p. 12).
In summary, the loss of habitat was a significant historical threat
to the frosted flatwoods salamander. This range-wide loss of both
upland and wetland habitat occurred primarily due to conversion of
flatwoods sites to agriculture, residential development, and
intensively managed pine plantations. This historic loss of habitat is
presently compounded by current environmental conditions (drought),
proposed projects on private land that do not require Corps permits
under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and the nature of
pond-breeding salamanders to undergo periodic reproductive failure. We
consider this threat to be primarily a past and future threat of
moderate magnitude because most of the remaining occupied habitat of
this species occurs on public lands that are managed to support the
native longleaf pine ecosystem. However, 12 percent of frosted
flatwoods salamander populations are on private land where habitat
continues to be degraded by fire suppression and incompatible
management (defined above under summary discussion for reticulated
flatwoods salamander). If the remaining frosted flatwoods salamander
habitat on public land continues to be protected from fire suppression
and other incompatible forest management practices, road construction,
and additional habitat fragmentation, the threat of habitat loss should
be limited. Localized threats on private lands would include loss or
alteration of habitat from agriculture, residential development, road
construction, incompatible forest management, ORVs, fire suppression,
and ditching or draining wetland breeding sites. As a result, we have
determined that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of frosted flatwoods salamander habitat and range
represents a moderate but significant threat to the species.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Overutilization does not appear to be a threat to the frosted
flatwoods salamander at this time. There is no evidence of a past or
current problem with collection of this species. Consequently, we have
determined that the factor of overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to
the frosted flatwoods salamander at this time.
C. Disease or Predation
Although disease has not been specifically documented in the
frosted flatwoods salamander thus far, disease outbreaks with mass
mortality in other species of salamanders indicate that disease may be
a threat for this species as well (Daszak et al. 1999, p. 736). Whiles
et al. (2004, p. 211) found a parasitic nematode (Hedruris siredonis,
family Hedruridae) in larvae of the frosted flatwoods salamander from
South Carolina and Florida. This parasite has been found in other
ambystomatids and can cause individuals to become undersized and thin,
thus reducing their fitness (Whiles et al. 2004, p. 212). The
infestations
[[Page 6710]]
were not considered heavy and were probably not having a negative
impact on the larvae studied; however, environmental degradation may
change the dynamics between salamander populations and normally
innocuous parasites (Whiles et al. 2004, p. 212). Ranaviruses in the
family Iridoviridae and the amphibian chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium
dendrobatidis) may be other potential threats, although the
susceptibility of the frosted flatwoods salamander to these diseases is
unknown. Ranaviruses have been responsible for die-offs of tiger
salamanders throughout western North America and spotted salamanders
(A. maculatum) in Maine (Daszak et al. 1999, p. 736). The amphibian
chytrid fungus has been discovered and associated with mass mortality
in tiger salamanders in southern Arizona and California, and the Santa
Cruz long-toed salamander (A. macrodactylum croceum) (Vredenburg and
Summers 2001, p. 151; Davidson et al. 2003, p. 601; Padgett-Flohr and
Longcore 2005, p. 50). This fungus has been found at Fort Stewart
Military Installation in Georgia, a locality where the frosted
flatwoods salamander occurs (Mitchell 2002, p. 191-202). This disease
has negatively impacted populations of other ambystomatid salamanders
(A. macrodactylum croceum) (Vredenburg and Summers 2001, p. 151;
Davidson et al. 2003, p. 601; Padgett-Flohr and Longcore 2005, p. 50),
and it is likely to negatively impact frosted flatwoods salamander
populations as well. This discussion of disease in other species of
closely related salamanders indicates the potential existence of
similar threats to frosted flatwoods salamander populations.
Exposure to increased predation by fish is a threat to the frosted
flatwoods salamander when isolated, seasonally ponded wetland breeding
sites are changed to or connected to more permanent wetlands inhabited
by fish species not typically found in temporary ponds. Red imported
fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are also potential predators of
flatwoods salamanders, especially in disturbed areas. They have been
seen in areas disturbed by the installation of drift fences at known
frosted flatwoods salamander breeding sites (Palis 2008). Mortality of
amphibians trapped at drift fences has occurred when fire ants were
present and traps were not monitored with sufficient frequency (Palis
et al. 2002, p. 6). The severity and magnitude of effects, as well as
the long-term effect, of fire ants on frosted flatwoods salamander
populations are currently unknown.
In summary, diseases of amphibians in the southeastern United
States remain largely unstudied. However, given the incidence of
disease in species in the western United States that could be
considered surrogates for flatwoods salamanders, the probability exists
for similar infections to occur in frosted flatwoods salamander
populations. We consider this to be a potential threat of moderate
magnitude. Predation by fish is a historic threat that continues to be
a localized problem when ditches, firebreaks, or vehicle ruts provide
connections allowing the movement of fish from permanent water bodies
into frosted flatwoods salamander breeding sites. Fire ants also have
the potential of being a localized threat, particularly in disturbed
areas. We consider these threats to be potential threats of moderate
magnitude because 88 percent of frosted flatwoods salamander
populations occur primarily on public lands where they are relatively
protected from habitat destruction.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Other than the National Forest Management Act and the Sikes Act,
there are no existing regulatory mechanisms for the protection of the
upland habitats where frosted flatwoods salamanders spend most of their
lives. Refer to Factor D under ``Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species (Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander)'' for information on the
threat of the Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms that also
applies to frosted flatwoods salamander.
Longleaf pine habitat management plans that provide conservation
benefits to frosted flatwoods salamanders have been written for most of
these sites. They include management plans for State- and Federally-
owned lands and integrated natural resource management plans (INRMPs)
for Department of Defense lands. Most of the plans contain specific
goals and objectives regarding habitat management, including prescribed
burning, that would benefit frosted flatwoods salamanders if
implemented. Multiple-use is the guiding principle on most of these
public lands, however, and protection of the frosted flatwoods
salamander may be just one of many management goals including timber
production and military and recreational use.
At the State and local levels, regulatory mechanisms are limited.
The flatwoods salamander is listed as a threatened species in the State
of Georgia (Jensen 1999, pp. 92-93). This designation protects the
species by preventing its sale, purchase, or possession in Georgia and
by prohibiting actions that cause direct mortality of the species or
the destruction of its habitat on lands owned by the State of Georgia
(Ozier 2008). However, there are no known frosted flatwoods salamander
populations on lands owned by the State of Georgia. In 2001, the
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) listed the
flatwoods salamander (which includes the frosted flatwoods salamander)
as a species of special concern (FFWCC 2007, p. 2) and prohibited
direct take except through permit. As part of the listing process, a
Statewide management plan was developed for the salamander in Florida
(FFWCC 2001, p. 1-60); however, Florida regulations offer no protection
against the most significant threat to the frosted flatwoods
salamander--loss of habitat. In South Carolina, the flatwoods
salamander is listed as endangered (South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources 2008a). Prohibitions extend only to the direct take
of the flatwoods salamander (South Carolina Department of Natural
Resources 2008b). These regulations offer no protection against the
most significant threat to the flatwoods salamander, which is loss of
its habitat.
In summary, although existing regulatory mechanisms provide little
direct protection of frosted flatwoods salamanders (beyond the
protections afforded by the Act), they do provide a degree of
protection for the remaining occupied habitat, primarily on public
lands. The record of management on public lands since the original
listing of the flatwoods salamander in 1999 indicates that public
agencies are actively pursuing longleaf pine ecosystem management
programs that benefit the frosted flatwoods salamander. Frosted
flatwoods salamander breeding sites on the three private land sites
may, in some cases, come under the jurisdiction of the Corps (Refer to
Factor D under ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (Reticulated
Flatwoods Salamander)'' for discussion of section 404 of the Clean
Water Act and regulatory wetlands), but most likely they are provided
little regulatory protection. We have determined that the threat of
inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms is primarily an ongoing
threat of moderate magnitude.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Metapopulations are important to the long-term survival of
temporary pond
[[Page 6711]]
breeding amphibians. Refer to Factor E under ``Summary of Factors
Affecting the Species (Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander)'' for
additional information on metapopulations. Of the 25 known frosted
flatwoods salamanders populations, 16 (64 percent) are supported by
more than one breeding pond and may be considered metapopulations.
However, 36 percent (9 out of 25) of the known frosted flatwoods
salamander populations that have only a single breeding pond, any one
of the many threats that may render a breeding pond unsuitable could
cause the extirpation of the affected population.
Invasive plant species, such as cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica),
threaten to further degrade existing flatwoods habitat. Refer to Factor
E under ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (Reticulated
Flatwoods Salamander)'' for additional information on invasive species
and the threat they represent, which also applies to the frosted
flatwoods salamander. Frosted flatwoods salamander habitat management
plans will need to address threats posed by cogongrass and other
invasive plant species and include strategies to control them.
Pesticides (including herbicides) may pose a threat to amphibians,
such as the frosted flatwoods salamander. Refer to Factor E under
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (Reticulated Flatwoods
Salamander)'' for additional information on pesticides and the threat
they represent, which also applies to the frosted flatwoods salamander.
However, herbicides may be a necessary tool to reduce or eliminate
woody vegetation or invasive plants when the use of prescribed fire is
not possible or effective (Jensen 2007, Wigley 2008). Nevertheless,
pesticides should never be used in flatwoods salamander habitat unless
no other habitat management tool is available; herbicide label
directions should be followed closely and aerial spraying should not be
used as an application technique. Under these conditions, we consider
this threat to be of moderate magnitude.
Studies of other ambystomatid species have demonstrated a decline
in larval survival in the presence of predatory fish, as mentioned
above under Factor C. One of the potential reasons for this decline may
be the negative effect resulting from these fish competing with
salamander larvae for invertebrate prey. The invertebrates found by
Whiles et al. (2004, p. 212) in a study of larval frosted and
reticulated flatwoods salamander gut contents are typical of freshwater
habitats in the Southeast that do not contain predatory fish on a
regular basis. The presence of predatory fish has a marked effect on
invertebrate communities and alters prey availability for larval
salamanders with the potential for negative effects on larval fitness
and survival (Semlitsch 1987, p. 481). Wherever connections have been
created between permanent water and frosted flatwoods salamander ponds,
such as through installation of firebreaks or ditches, this threat from
predatory fish exists.
Studies of frosted flatwoods salamander populations, since the
original species listing of flatwoods salamander as threatened (64 FR
15691; April 1, 1999), have been limited due to drought. Data on the
numbers of adults within existing populations do not exist. However,
given the low number of individuals encountered even when breeding is
verified, populations are likely to be very small at any given breeding
site. Small populations are at increased threat of extirpation from
natural processes (genetic isolation, inbreeding depression, and
drought), as well as the manmade threats described above.
In summary, a variety of natural or manmade factors historically or
currently threaten, or have the potential to threaten, the frosted
flatwoods salamander. The loss of metapopulation structure in the
distribution of frosted flatwoods salamander populations was a range-
wide threat that caused historic losses of this species. It continues
to be a current threat for 64 percent of the remaining frosted
flatwoods salamander populations. Fire suppression and inadequate
habitat management continue to cause the degradation of occupied sites,
primarily on private land. Invasive plant species probably did not have
much of a historic impact on salamander populations, but they are a
range-wide current threat, and they are likely to become more
widespread and difficult to control. Range-wide, low population
densities have been a historic threat and continue to be a threat for
most frosted flatwoods salamander populations, particularly due to past
and current drought conditions, habitat loss, population fragmentation,
and periodic reproductive failures that occur naturally in pond-
breeding amphibians. The impact that competing predators may have on
the salamanders' prey base, and the threat of pesticide and herbicide
use, are less clear as historic threats but remain potential localized
threats for the species. Therefore, while we have determined that other
natural and manmade factors, such as invasive species, pesticides, and
competition for the species' prey base, may threaten the frosted
flatwoods salamander, the severity and magnitude of these threats are
not currently known. Acting in combination with threats listed above
under Factors A through D, the threats under Factor E could increase
the severity of the other threats.
Determination
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
to the frosted flatwoods salamander. In summary, the most significant
historical threat to the frosted flatwoods salamander, as listed in
Factor A (above), is loss of the majority of its habitat. A variety of
localized threats (described under Factors A, C, D, and E) have the
potential to impact the remaining frosted flatwoods salamander
populations and habitat. These include--alterations in the hydrology of
existing wetland breeding sites (including ``ditching'' which results
in the introduction of predatory fish); incompatible forest management;
ORV use; fire suppression; drought; and disease. The severity and
magnitude of the threats under Factor E are not currently known.
Nevertheless, we have determined that threats under this factor will
exacerbate the effects of threats due to habitat loss and drought. As
described in Factor E above, small populations are at increased threat
of extirpation from natural processes (genetic isolation, inbreeding
depression, and drought), as well as the manmade threats listed above.
Finally, there are potential localized threats from fire ants,
pesticides, and invasive plants for which the extent of impact is yet
undeterminable, but that we believe are legitimate threats due to both
their impact on surrogate species and their prevalence in the types of
habitats used by this species.
Only 25 frosted flatwoods salamander populations are known. Ten (40
percent) of these populations are supported by only one breeding site.
A population with only one breeding site has a tenuous future just
given randomly varying environmental factors without considering the
additional threats of habitat destruction and degradation that further
threaten these populations.
As noted previously, habitat with the range of the frosted
flatwoods salamander is currently experiencing drought conditions.
Palis et al. (2006, pp. 5-6) studied a frosted flatwoods population in
Florida during a drought from 1999-2002. This study documented 3
consecutive years of reproductive failure and a steady
[[Page 6712]]
decline in adult immigration to the site for breeding as the drought
progressed.
Catastrophic reproductive failure occurs even in healthy
populations of pond-breeding amphibians. When it does occur, the
modeling efforts of Taylor et al. (2005, p. 796) showed that each year
of reproductive failure raises the threshold of survival required to
achieve persistence and imposes the possibility of extirpation even
under otherwise favorable environmental conditions. Taylor et al.
(2005, p. 799) reminds us that particularly with small populations or
low population growth rates (as exists with the frosted flatwoods
salamander) effects of reproductive failure are made worse by
demographic stochasticity. Even in populations with multiple breeding
ponds, amphibian populations may be unable to recolonize areas after
local extirpations due to their physiological constraints, relatively
low mobility, and site fidelity (Blaustein et al. 1994, pp. 60, 67-68).
For frosted flatwoods salamander, 40 percent of populations have
only one breeding pond. If the habitat at that site is destroyed,
recolonization would be impossible and the population supported by that
breeding pond would be extirpated.
Habitat loss on private lands is an imminent threat that is
compounded by a variety of other factors. Fire suppression on private
lands occupied by the frosted flatwoods salamander represents one of
the biggest threats to the species' habitat and the continued existence
of the species on these sites. However, 60 percent of frosted flatwoods
salamander populations have an improved chance of surviving demographic
and environmental stochasticity given that the distribution of breeding
sites occurs within an adult salamander's dispersal distance.
We believe that, when combining the effects of historical, current,
and projected habitat loss and degradation, historical and ongoing
drought, and the exacerbating effects of disease, predation, small
population size, and isolation, the frosted flatwoods salamander
continues to be likely to become an endangered species throughout all
of its range within the foreseeable future. We believe these threats,
particularly the threats to populations resulting from habitat
degradation and fragmentation, small population size, and drought, are
current and are projected to continue into the future. We have
determined that these threats are operating on the species and its
habitat with a moderate degree of magnitude throughout most of its
range and with a moderate degree of severity, as discussed above.
Based on the best available scientific and commercial information,
we have determined that the preferred action is for the frosted
flatwoods salamander to retain its status as a threatened species under
the Act. Without the protection of the Act, significant management of
threats would likely occur on public lands; however, there is still
substantial risk of loss of ponds to drought and disease and, on
private lands, a variety of potential threats (for example,
introduction of fish, predation, pesticides), and imminent threats (for
example, fire suppression, invasive species, and development). As
discussed previously, declines resulting from drought can occur within
only a few years. In the case of the frosted flatwoods salamander, 40
percent of populations have only one breeding pond. If the habitat at
that site is destroyed, recolonization would be impossible and the
population supported by that breeding pond would be extirpated. This
could occur within a few years given recurring drought conditions and
existing threats. While not in immediate danger of extinction, the
frosted flatwoods salamander is likely to become an endangered species
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range if the present trends that negatively affect the species, and
its limited and restricted habitat, continue. Furthermore, because
these threats to the species are of comparable magnitude and severity
across all of the species' range, we have determined that an analysis
of whether a specific portion of the range might require a different
listing status is not warranted at this time.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition of the status, increased
priority for research and conservation funding, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
activities. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation actions by Federal, State, and local agencies; private
organizations; and individuals. The Act provides for possible land
acquisition and cooperation with the States, and for conservation
actions to be carried out for listed species.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. If a Federal
action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency must consult with us under the provisions of
section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
Federal agency actions within the species habitat that may require
consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include management
and any other landscape altering activities on Federal lands
administered by the Department of Defense, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and U.S. Forest Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act
permits by the Corps; construction and management of gas pipeline and
power line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission;
and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal
Highway Administration.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered
wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered
wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to
attempt any of these), import, export, ship in interstate commerce in
the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal
to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife
that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of
the Service and State conservation agencies.
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened or endangered wildlife species under certain
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR
17.22 for endangered species. You may obtain permits for scientific
purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and
for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.
Critical Habitat
Previous Federal Actions
For information about previous Federal actions regarding
designation of
[[Page 6713]]
critical habitat for flatwoods salamanders, see our proposed rule (73
FR 47258) published on August 13, 2008. This notice included revisions
to the proposed designation of critical habitat published in the
Federal Register on February 7, 2007 (72 FR 5856), and announced the
availability of our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical
habitat designation (DEA). On September 18, 2008, we published a notice
in the Federal Register (73 FR 54125) providing supplemental
information on the status of the frosted flatwoods salamander. On
October 8, 2008, we published a notice in the Federal Register which
extended the public comment period on the proposed rule and provided
the time, date, and location of our public hearing (73 FR 58922). We
held a public hearing on October 22, 2008. The extended public comment
period ended on November 3, 2008.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
As stated above, since the proposed rule addressed both listing and
critical habitat, comments received combined these two issues.
Therefore, we are presenting the combined comments and responses for
these issues, below.
In the 2007 proposed rule, we requested written comments from the
public on reasons why we should or should not designate critical
habitat for the flatwoods salamander (72 FR 5856). We contacted
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific
organizations; and other interested parties, and invited them to
comment on the proposed rule. We also issued press releases and
published legal notices in the Jasper County Sun, Pensacola News
Journal, The DeFuniak Springs Herald-Breeze, Savannah Morning News,
Tallahassee Democrat, The Albany Herald, Miller County Liberal, The
Berkeley Independent, The Florida Times-Union, The News Herald, and The
Post and Courier newspapers. During the open public comment period, we
received a request to hold a public hearing, however a public hearing
was not held at that time. Due to new information that became available
on threats to the flatwoods salamander and the reclassification in the
taxonomy of the species, we asked for an extension of our court-ordered
deadline on the designation of critical habitat for the flatwoods
salamander to include the new information. Subsequently, a new proposed
rule was written and published in the Federal Register on August 13,
2008 (73 FR 4725).
For the 2008 proposed rule, we requested written comments from the
public on known or suspected threats to the frosted flatwoods
salamander and the reticulated flatwoods salamander and any information
on the need to change the status of either species; reasons why we
should or should not designate critical habitat for the two species;
and on the DEA (73 FR 47258). We contacted appropriate Federal, State,
and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested
parties, and invited them to comment on the proposed rule. We also
issued press releases and published legal notices in the Jasper County
Sun, Northwest Florida Daily News, Pensacola News Journal, Savannah
Morning News, Tallahassee Democrat, The Albany Herald, The Berkeley
Independent, The Florida Times-Union, The News Herald, and The Post and
Courier newspapers. Based on a request received during the public
comment period, we held a public hearing and information meeting on
October 22, 2008, at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, Florida.
During the comment period for the first proposed rule that opened
on February 7, 2007, and closed on April 9, 2007, we received 23
comments directly addressing the original proposed critical habitat
designation: five from peer reviewers; three from Federal agencies;
three from State agencies; and 12 from organizations or individuals.
During the comment period for the second proposed rule that opened on
August 13, 2008, and closed on November 3, 2008, we received 79
comments directly addressing the reclassification in the listing of the
flatwoods salamander into two species; the proposed designation of the
reticulated flatwoods salamander as endangered; the maintenance of the
listing of the frosted flatwoods salamander as threatened; the revised
proposed critical habitat designation for the two species; and the DEA.
Of these latter comments, 44 comments were received either in written
form or through the portal at: http://www.regulations.gov; three of
these were from Federal agencies, none were from State agencies, one
was from a local government, and 40 were from organizations or
individuals. Thirty-five of the 79 comments were made during the public
hearing held on October 22, 2008; one of these was from a Federal
agency, one was from a State agency, one was from a state senator, four
were from local governments, and 28 were from organizations or
individuals.
The following summary statistics are provided on the 23 comments
received on the 2007 proposed rule. In total, 7 commenters supported
the designation of critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander, 3
opposed the designation, and 13 were neutral regarding the designation.
These following summary statistics are provided on the 79 comments
received on the 2008 proposed rule. Nine commenters sent comments
during the 2008 open comment period and also commented at the public
hearing. An individual, group, or agency responding multiple times was
only counted once as none of these commenters' opinions of the proposed
rule differed between responses. In total, 33 commenters supported the
proposed rule, 34 opposed the proposed rule, and 3 were neutral
regarding the proposed rule. Comments received were grouped into 7
general issues specifically relating to the subjects in the 2008
proposed rule and the DEA, and are addressed in the following summary.
We have incorporated comments into this final rule as appropriate.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), and current Department of the Interior guidance, we solicited
expert opinions for both the 2007 and 2008 proposed rules from five
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included
familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which the
species occurs, and conservation biology principles. We received
responses from all five of the peer reviewers on the 2007 proposed rule
and from four of the five peer reviewers on the 2008 proposed rule. We
reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive
issues and new information regarding flatwoods salamander critical
habitat. We combined peer reviewer comments from both years. The peer
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to
improve the final critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments are
addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule
as appropriate.
Peer Review Comments
(1) Comment: Three of the peer reviewers emphasized the importance
of the Eglin Air Force Base-Hurlburt Field metapopulation to the
survival of the reticulated flatwoods salamander and questioned whether
adequate habitat management, especially fire management, could be
conducted if the highway proposed for the area was
[[Page 6714]]
approved (see also Comment 15). They discussed the inclusion or
exclusion of military lands which have approved Integrated Natural
Resource Management Plans (INRMPs), including these two sites as well
as Navy Outlying Landing Field (NOLF) Holley (see also Comment 16).
These peer reviewers were concerned about the finite period of the
plans and the potential for decreased conservation efforts if INRMPs
are revised when renewed. One peer reviewer recommended that NOLF
Holley be included in critical habitat because the Navy's natural
resources manager and forester had informed him that the Navy no longer
had use for the field and that Santa Rosa County was interested in
acquiring it. They concurred with the 2008 proposed rule (73 FR 47258)
that included these military lands in proposed critical habitat.
Our Response: Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin) has assured the Service
that they ``will not allow negative impacts to the salamander habitat''
on the base (DoAF 2008a, p. 1). The Commander of Eglin stated that,
``Eglin will ensure that the proposed Bypass road, and any actions
associated with it, will not prevent implementation of the conservation
measures identified in the INRMP for the flatwoods salamander'' (DoAF
2008b, p. 1). The Service has reassessed the Eglin INRMP and determined
that, with the Air Force's recent assurances, it will provide a
conservation benefit for the reticulated flatwoods salamander. The
Department of the Navy has assured the Service that the Navy has no
intention of transferring ownership of NOLF Holley and the INRMP will
continue to be implemented for this site as written (Department of the
Navy 2008, p. 2). We conduct annual reviews of the INRMPs for all the
military bases with known flatwoods salamander populations and reassess
their conservation benefits and implementation. All the involved
military bases have assured the Service of their future compliance with
their INRMPs (see citations above). As a result of this analysis,
Eglin, Hurlburt Field, and NOLF Holley have been removed from the final
critical habitat designation for the reticulated flatwoods salamander.
(2) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the locality record used
as the basis for proposed critical habitat unit RFS-5 is based on a
poor quality photograph of a single larva collected in 1998 and that
the larva in the photograph is likely a mole salamander (Ambystoma
talpoideum). The site of the locality record and at least 100 other
wetlands in the area have been surveyed since 2002 during suitable
immigration and emigration periods. Many mole salamanders have been
captured, but no reticulated flatwoods salamanders. It is the opinion
of the peer reviewer that the original identification of the collected
larva as a reticulated flatwoods salamander was in error.
Our Response: We agree that there is no verifiable evidence that
flatwoods salamanders occupy habitat represented by Unit RFS-5, as
originally proposed. Therefore, this unit has been removed and the
final critical habitat designation for the reticulated flatwoods
salamander has been revised based on this comment.
(3) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that habitat within proposed
critical habitat unit FFS-2, located on Tate's Hell State Forest, is no
longer suitable for the frosted flatwoods salamander. Since an adult
flatwoods salamander was discovered there in 1998, hydrological
restoration of the likely breeding site has been conducted and altered
the site to a more permanently flooded wetland. Surveyors sampled the
site in 2002, 2003, and 2004 but were unsuccessful in documenting any
flatwoods salamander larvae within the wetland. The peer reviewer
believes the wetland restoration project and the historically poor
upland management of the area have resulted in the loss of flatwoods
salamander habitat at this site on Tate's Hell State Forest.
Our Response: Based on the peer reviewer's comment and the site
visit information, we believe Unit FFS-10, as originally proposed, no
longer contains the PCEs essential to the conservation of the flatwoods
salamander. Therefore, this unit has been removed from the final
critical habitat designation.
(4) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that maps in the proposed
rule are not sufficient for delineating actual boundaries of proposed
critical habitat. The peer reviewer suggested using road or topographic
maps and aerial photography.
Our Response: The printing standards of the Federal Register are
not compatible with using road or topographic maps and aerial
photography. We constructed the critical habitat units using a
Geographic Information System (GIS). The resulting critical habitat GIS
shapefiles are available by request from the Mississippi Field Office
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The shapefiles can be laid over
other layers (aerial photography, roads) to get more precise locality
information.
(5) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that reticulated flatwoods
salamander units in southwest Georgia (unit names in 2008 proposed rule
(73 FR 47258; August 13, 2008) are RFS-10, subunits A and B,
respectively) may have agricultural land that does not contain the
primary constituent elements and should be removed.
Our Response: The peer reviewer did not have access to our GIS data
when we received this comment. When constructing the units in question,
we used aerial photography to verify the presence of the primary
constituent elements on the areas and that all agricultural land was
excluded from RFS-10, subunits A and B.
Public Comments
General Biological Comments
(6) Comment: One commenter cited studies which described flatwoods
salamander breeding sites as roadside ditches and borrow pits, as well
as natural habitats. This commenter believed that this shows the
adaptability of the species and the likelihood that suitable breeding
habitat could be created for the salamanders. Several commenters during
the public hearing thought that flatwoods salamander habitat could be
relocated or constructed elsewhere as an alternative to protecting the
existing occupied sites through critical habitat designation. Other
commenters at the public hearing stated that this was not possible, as
flatwoods salamanders are tied to specific soils and forest-wetland
types that need to be present in a landscape context. These commenters
expressed support for protecting existing sites.
Our Response: Flatwoods salamanders are known to breed in wetlands
that dry on a seasonal basis. The Service is aware of records of
flatwoods salamander larvae occurring in ditches and borrow pits.
However, whether larvae were successful in developing into adult
salamanders at these sites is unknown. The ponded breeding sites must
hold water long enough and have a sufficient food source to allow
salamander development and metamorphosis. They must also be free of
predaceous fish and toxic substances. In addition, there are a number
of biotic and abiotic factors that are likely essential for flatwoods
salamanders at breeding sites that are currently unknown. Experimental
relocations should be an action of last resort for these species and
may be explored through the recovery process, if deemed necessary.
Adequacy and Extent of Critical Habitat
(7) Comment: Two commenters stated that critical habitat
designation on any
[[Page 6715]]
lands approved under the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and
Sustainable Forestry Certification Program (SFI) is unnecessary and
redundant (not warranted). These lands are already recognized as
habitat for listed species under the certification program and
participants in the program are required to safeguard and protect
threatened and endangered species. Participants are expected to
implement scientifically based management practices and adaptive
management strategies as appropriate. Provisions of this program are
not legally binding; however, participants must comply to stay in the
program. Therefore, lands under SFI programs should not require special
management considerations. The commenters believed designation would
not significantly increase or contribute to the likelihood of recovery
of the species because the vast majority of lands are either in public
ownership or managed according to SFI standards. Therefore, the
commenters asserted that critical habitat offers little or no
additional management protection and no additional conservation
benefit.
Our Response: The criteria for designating sites as critical
habitat are whether the sites provide the features essential for the
conservation of the species and whether those features may require
special management consideration or protection. Under section 4(b)(2)
of the Act, the Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if
the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such
areas as part of critical habitat. We also consider whether landowners
having proposed critical habitat on their lands have developed any
conservation plans for the area, or whether there are conservation
partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion
from, critical habitat. Included in this analysis would be whether or
not conservation plans have species-specific management prescriptions,
or other management approaches, that are coupled with assurances of
implementation. The commenter presented a general statement about SFI
programs. However, the Service did not receive any comments from
specific private landowners within proposed critical habitat that
identified themselves as participants in SFI programs nor did we
receive any SFI conservation plans for analysis. Therefore, there is no
new information indicating that removal of lands under SFI from
critical habitat is warranted.
(8) Comment: Several commenters stated that private land should be
excluded from critical habitat designation. One commenter suggested
that the Service should offer incentives, such as voluntary cooperative
agreements as a conservation policy for private lands in lieu of
critical habitat designation. These commenters stated that it would not
be beneficial to flatwoods salamanders to designate critical habitat on
private land since designation would be a disincentive for the
landowners to continue conservation efforts for this species, would
likely increase threats resulting in a net loss of conservation
benefit, and eventually result in the extirpation of flatwoods
salamanders on private lands.
Our Response: Section 4 of the Act requires the Service to use the
best available scientific data in designating critical habitat. Private
lands are not exempted from this analysis. Flatwoods salamanders have
been listed since 1999 and protection from ``take'' under section 9 has
been in effect since that time. The Service knows of no situation where
a private landowner has knowingly destroyed or mismanaged flatwoods
salamander habitat as a result of this listing. Critical habitat only
applies to those lands where there is a Federal nexus (a connection or
link to the Federal government). In some cases, private lands may be
affected if the landowner is undertaking a project that requires
Federal funding or permit. However, the Service believes most
application of the protection provided by critical habitat will not
affect private lands. Programs are available to provide funds to
private landowners for managing habitat for listed species, as well as
permits that can be obtained to protect private landowners from the
take prohibition when such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose
of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Private
landowners may contact their local Service field office to obtain
information about these programs and permits.
(9) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the
potential for being prosecuted for adverse modification if private
properties designated as critical habitat are fire suppressed. The
commenter requested a definition for fire suppression and an
explanation of practices related to fire suppression that would be
problematic. The commenter requested that the Service offer emergency
exemptions from adverse modification for human life or property.
Our Response: At this time, the Service is unaware of any Federal
actions that would leave a private landowner vulnerable to prosecution
for adverse modification due to fire suppression. Federal actions
related to fire suppression that might lead to adverse modification
would include improper implementation of management plans on Federal
lands. If suppression of a wildfire is necessary as an emergency
Federal action relating to human health and safety within occupied
habitat of a listed species or designated as critical habitat, an
after-the-fact consultation can be conducted. Under the statutory
provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse modification
on the basis of whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal
action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional to serve
its intended conservation role for the species. However, when
considering fire suppression as a threat, we refer to a Federal action
which will lead to elimination of fire as a management tool and allow
thick underbrush and mid-story to shade out the herbaceous ground
cover. Fire suppression, in this sense, leads to deterioration of
flatwoods salamander habitat quality and potentially adverse
modification of critical habitat.
(10) Comment: One commenter requested that the Service should
consider a buffer width less than 1,475 feet (ft) (450 meters (m))
around known breeding ponds when defining and designating critical
habitat units and stated that the designation of this distance was
arbitrary because it was based on a different salamander species. The
commenter suggested a 534 [sic] ft (164 m) buffer width as calculated
by Semlitsch (1998, p. 1113). This commenter also references Palis et
al. (2002, pp. 1-20) that is provided as support for a smaller buffer
width around known flatwoods salamander breeding ponds. Another
commenter disputed the scientific basis for rounding up the buffer
radius to 1,500 ft (457 m) from 1,476 ft (450 m) when constructing
critical habitat units. Several commenters requested that the buffer
width used in calculating critical habitat units be increased to 5,576
ft (1,700 m), since this is the maximum distance flatwoods salamanders
have been reported to disperse and this would create connectivity
between known occurrences.
Our Response: Semlitsch (1998, p. 1113) combined movement data in
five States for six species of ambystomatid salamanders, which had been
collected over a period of several decades. Using these data, we
generated a 538-ft (164-m) buffer width from a wetland's edge into the
terrestrial habitat, which would create an area that he stated would
encompass 95 percent of a population of one of these species. However,
Semlitsch (1998, p. 1117) pointed out
[[Page 6716]]
that the values used in this calculation probably underestimate the
actual buffer needed for some species of salamanders. In addition, he
specifically mentioned the flatwoods salamander as one of the species
that may require more habitat than the area created by using the 538-ft
(164-m) buffer width (Semlitsch 1998, p. 1117). The Service selected a
buffer width of 1,475 ft (450 m) from the Semlitsch (1998, p. 1115)
paper to use for the flatwoods salamander calculation. This is the
maximum value used in his calculations for the marbled salamander. We
chose this species because it was recommended by researchers as a model
for the flatwoods salamander due to its similar life history (Taylor et
al. 2005, pp. 792) and because it uses habitat in a similar way.
Although adult marbled salamanders occupy hardwood forests rather than
pine forests, they breed underground and in temporary ponds. The 1,475
ft (450 m) value corresponded well with data collected over 20 years by
Means et al. (1996, p. 435) which described estimated movements of
flatwoods salamanders of 984 ft (300 m) to 1,640 ft (500 m) between
upland habitat and breeding ponds in relatively homogeneous habitat.
The Service used the value of 1,476 ft (450 m) to estimate the size
of activity areas used by flatwoods salamanders in the original listing
rule. This value also was used originally in draft management
guidelines for flatwoods salamanders that the Service wrote in
conjunction with the flatwoods salamander recovery team. During review
of these draft guidelines, several members of the recovery team (mainly
foresters) felt that use of this value was unrealistic. They believed
that it was unlikely that a forester in the field would measure such an
uneven number. For ease of application, they believed an even number
would be easier to work with in the field and recommended rounding the
value up to 1,500 ft (457 m). The Service did not use the 5,576 ft
(1,700 m) movement distance described in Ashton and Ashton (2005, p.
65) to define the activity area for flatwoods salamanders because we
consider this distance to represent the limit of the species dispersal.
Therefore, the Service considered breeding sites within twice this
distance (rounded to 2 mi (3.2 km)) to be considered part of the same
metapopulation. Dr. Semlitsch was a peer reviewer of this proposed
rule. In his review of the proposed rule, he stated that the distance
the Service used to delineate the activity area around the breeding
ponds is well-supported biologically in the literature and based on
numerous studies of species in the same genus. Further, he also stated
that connecting breeding sites within two miles of each other to
protect dispersal habitat is also well-justified in the literature. He
stated that neither value used in our calculations is too conservative
or excessive, but rather an appropriate balance between the economics
of land use and habitat protection. Palis et al. (2002, pp. 1-20)
provides information on a declining flatwoods salamander population
during a drought. A drift fence was set up enclosing the breeding site
for this population and three partial drift fences were set into the
uplands at 164, 328, and 656 ft (50, 100, and 200 m) from the pond-
upland edge. Only one individual provided one travel movement of 328 ft
(100 m) from the uplands into the pond, during this 3-year study.
Although this paper provides this movement datum of one individual
during a drought, the Service does not believe it is conclusive enough
to use in defining the activity area of flatwoods salamanders around
breeding ponds.
(11) Comment: One commenter questioned whether, when proposing
critical habitat, we had taken into account wide-scale global climate
change and the possibility of inbreeding or natural extinction in the
many small, isolated populations of flatwoods salamanders.
Our Response: Extinction is a natural process. Normally, new
species develop through a process known as speciation at about the same
rate that other species become extinct. However, because of air and
water pollution, extensive deforestation, the loss of wetlands, and
other human-induced impacts, extinctions are now occurring at a rate
far exceeding the speciation rate. The purpose of the Act is to
conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems on which
they depend. The Service has presented information on threats to the
two species of flatwoods salamander elsewhere in this rule. We have no
data supporting global climate change as a specific threat; however,
flatwoods salamanders have been negatively affected by a recent long-
term drought. The many threats that face these species, including the
possibility of inbreeding or natural extinction, highlight the
importance of metapopulations. These threats were considered and we
designated critical habitat for areas occupied by metapopulations
whenever possible by providing habitat to connect occupied sites.
(12) Comment: One commenter asked if we had population estimates
for those populations whose habitat had been used to designate critical
habitat. He questioned the use of presence-absence surveys as a basis
for designating critical habitat, especially those areas where only one
individual flatwoods salamander had been captured. Without population
estimates, he did not believe we had sufficient population data to use
as a basis for designating critical habitat.
Our Response: Obtaining population estimates from wild populations
of animals is frequently a difficult task. The two species of flatwoods
salamander are widely distributed across the southeastern United
States. Only a few of the populations have been studied in detail. Even
in these populations, estimates of the number of salamanders at a site
have not been possible. For a pond-breeding amphibian that lives
underground for most of its life, the typical method used to monitor a
population is to put a fence around a breeding site that captures the
adult salamanders that come in to breed and the metamorphic salamanders
and adults that leave the pond after the breeding event. At minimum,
obtaining a population estimate using this technique needs to be
repeated often enough to get values for the number of females breeding
in the population, their annual survival and reproductive rates,
survival of juvenile salamanders (especially the first year cohort) and
the age at first reproduction for females. These values are not known
for any flatwoods salamander population. It was impossible, due to
constraints of time, money, and fluctuations in weather, to determine
the number of individuals in extant populations for use in this rule.
The capture of one larva at a particular location does not always
indicate low numbers. In many cases, surveyors will simply stop
surveying once an individual is documented in order to cover as many
different locations as possible within a limited survey time period.
The Act requires determinations of critical habitat to be based on the
best scientific data available. In this case, data from presence-
absence surveys represent the best scientific data available and the
Service used these data as a basis for designating critical habitat.
(13) Comment: One commenter suggested that flatwoods salamanders
may have adapted their lifestyle requirements to a different habitat
than that which was designated as critical habitat. He stated that
flatwoods salamanders may occur in other breeding habitats than
ephemeral ponds and that these habitats have yet to be surveyed.
Our Response: Researchers have been studying flatwoods salamanders
for over
[[Page 6717]]
20 years and surveys have been conducted on the Apalachicola National
Forest in Florida for more than 30 years. Herpetologists have also been
studying other species of amphibians in the numerous wetland habitats
of the southeast since at least the 1930s. No flatwoods salamander has
ever been found outside of historical longleaf pine flatwoods or in
wetland areas that do not dry on a cyclic basis.
(14) Comment: One commenter asked about how we knew that breeding
habitats were ephemeral ponds and not seasonally connected to other
wetlands if we do not have long-term hydrologic data.
Our Response: The Service used data from known flatwoods salamander
localities to determine occupied areas. The locality data included
descriptions of the habitat. The vegetation of ephemeral ponds is
distinctive and researchers use it to distinguish between wetland
habitat types. In addition, we used aerial photography to look at each
area proposed for critical habitat and verify wetland type. Long-term
hydrologic data are needed to determine a wetland's hydroperiod but are
not necessary to discriminate an ephemeral pond. Under high water
conditions, such as those resulting from a hurricane, ephemeral
wetlands may become connected to other wetlands. However, under normal
weather conditions, they are isolated from other water bodies.
(15) Comment: Many commenters requested that habitat within Eglin
Air Force Base and Hurlburt Field be removed from critical habitat,
mainly due to a perception that designation of critical habitat would
stop the construction of the Bypass Road proposed by the Northwest
Florida Transportation Corridor on the southern property boundary of
Eglin Air Force Base. Other commenters simply wrote in support of the
Bypass Road construction without taking any position on any of the
actions proposed in the rule. The Department of the Air Force's Eglin
Air Force Base requested removal of the Base from critical habitat
because they stated that their existing Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plan (INRMP) is adequate, and they provided assurance that
the proposed Bypass Road would not prevent them from implementing the
INRMP. Many other commenters supported retaining Eglin and Hurlburt
Field within critical habitat because of the vital importance of this
area to the long-term survival of the reticulated flatwoods salamander.
These commenters were concerned that habitat management of these areas
proposed as critical habitat would not be possible if a road was
constructed in the proposed location.
Our Response: In 2007, the Service published a proposed rule
designating critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander (72 FR 5856).
Within this rule, Eglin was exempted from critical habitat because the
Service considered the INRMP for the base to be adequate. After this
rule was published, a threat became known to the Service which we
considered to be serious enough to question the adequacy of Eglin's
INRMP. This new threat was represented by a letter of conceptual
approval provided by Eglin to the Northwest Florida Transportation
Corridor Authority in October of 2007 for alignment of a road along the
southern boundary of the base. The proposed alignment was adjacent or
through most of the occupied reticulated flatwoods salamander habitat
on Eglin and Hurlburt Field. Due to the threat posed by this road and
Eglin's conceptual approval of it, the Service did not believe that
Eglin's INRMP was adequate and habitat on Eglin and Hurlburt Field was
included in the revised proposed critical habitat designation published
in 2008. However, in comments received by the Service during the open
comment period for this proposed rule, the Commander of Eglin stated,
``Eglin will ensure the proposed Bypass road, and any actions
associated with it, will not prevent implementation of the conservation
measures identified in the INRMP for the flatwoods salamander'' (DoAF
2008b, p. 1, see also response to Comment 1). As a result, Eglin and
Hurlburt Field have been removed from the final critical habitat
designation for the species.
(16) Comment: The Department of the Navy has requested that Navy
Outlying Landing Field (NOLF) Holley be removed from critical habitat
designation. Reasons for removal included that: The INRMP covering NOLF
Holley provides a conservation benefit to the reticulated flatwoods
salamander, thereby making critical habitat designation unnecessary;
the Navy currently has no plans to transfer ownership of NOLF Holley
and intends to continue its stewardship of the salamander and its
habitat; and NOLF Holley is required to meet current and future
military mission needs and as such is considered necessary for national
security. One commenter has requested that the Service retain NOLF
Holley within the critical habitat designation due to its importance as
the only habitat remaining in the area for the reticulated flatwoods
salamander and the potential for transfer of ownership from the
Department of the Navy to local developers.
Our Response: In 2007, the Service published a proposed rule
designating critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander (72 FR 5856).
Within this rule, NOLF Holley was exempted from proposed critical
habitat because the Service considered its INRMP to be adequate. After
the proposed rule was published, the Service received information that
the Navy was no longer using this field for military operations and
discussions had been initiated with Santa Rosa County to transfer
ownership of this property to the county. For this reason, NOLF Holley
was included in the 2008 revised proposed rule (73 FR 47258). During
the open comment period for the revised proposed rule, the Department
of the Navy assured the Service ``that the Navy currently has no plans
to transfer ownership of NOLF Holley (DoN 2008, p. 2, see also response
to Comment 1). Further, it is the Navy's intent to continue its
stewardship of the salamander and its habitat.'' Based on these
comments, the Service has reassessed the benefit of their INRMP and
concluded that it will continue to be implemented. Therefore, NOLF
Holley has been exempted from the final critical habitat designation.
(17) Comment: One commenter was concerned with the benefits of
INRMPs for the DOD lands in Georgia, Fort Stewart Military Installation
and Townsend Bombing Range. This commenter questioned whether the
existing INRMPs would meet the standard of ``conservation,'' which
would entail using all methods and procedures which would benefit the
survival and recovery of the frosted flatwoods salamander. The
commenter acknowledged that the Service has concluded that these two
INRMPs have met this standard, but questions whether funding is
sufficient to ensure conservation measures are implemented. The
commenter stated that, at the very least, the Service should continue
to review the INRMPs annually to ensure no projects, land use changes,
or funding cuts are proposed that will threatened continued protection
of the flatwoods salamander or its habitat.
Our Response: The Service will continue to review all INRMPs for
habitat occupied by both species of flatwoods salamander on an annual
basis to ensure that there is certainty they will be implemented and
that no projects or land use changes are proposed that are likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the frosted and reticulated
flatwoods salamanders
[[Page 6718]]
or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their habitats.
The Service has determined that conservation efforts identified in the
existing INRMPs for the DOD lands in Georgia, Fort Stewart Military
Installation and Townsend Bombing Range, will provide benefits to the
frosted flatwoods salamander and the features essential to the species'
conservation on these lands.
(18) Comment: One commenter identified unoccupied habitat in the
general area in the Apalachicola National Forest (ANF) that he believed
has the primary constituent elements for the frosted flatwoods
salamander but had not been proposed for critical habitat designation.
In addition, the commenter stated that designating unoccupied habitat
is an essential part of critical habitat for a species and needs to be
included in the final critical habitat designation for the flatwoods
salamander. The Service received comments from the ANF District Ranger
supporting the proposed designation of critical habitat for both
species of flatwoods salamander, including that portion of the
designation within the boundaries of ANF and Osceola National Forest.
In addition, the District Ranger has proposed to create ``salamander
conservation areas'' as a part of amending the forest's land management
plan. These areas would encompass proposed critical habitat and
additional areas not known to be occupied by salamanders but appearing
to have potential as flatwoods salamander habitat. These salamander
conservation areas will expand to the existing compartment boundaries
and provide more buffer area around known ponds, as well as unoccupied
potential habitat referred to by the first commenter. This strategy
will be implemented on the Osceola National Forest as well as ANF.
Expanding conservation areas to the compartment boundaries will ensure
that management of unoccupied areas will be conducted in the same
manner as, and in conjunction with, those areas currently occupied and
proposed for critical habitat.
Our Response: We recognize the value of designating unoccupied
habitat as critical habitat in certain situations. Based on the
available information, we do not believe that designating unoccupied
habitat for frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders provides
conservation benefit to these species if it is separated from occupied
habitat by an area of unsuitable habitat beyond the dispersal distance
of the salamanders for two reasons: The likelihood of natural
recolonization of these sites is nearly impossible (see also comment
23), and we have determined that this unoccupied habitat and other
areas not occupied at the time of listing not already included within
this rule are not essential to the conservation of the species. The
particular area referenced by the commenters has been combined with
those designated as critical habitat into compartments that will be
managed in their totality by ANF for conservation of the frosted
flatwoods salamander. We will continue to work with the Forest staff to
ensure conservation of the species and encourage management for
``salamander conservation areas'' as outlined by the ANF.
(19) Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat, as
proposed, will result in a fragmented landscape, with salamander
occurrences existing as isolated islands cut off from other salamanders
and from the ecosystem process that maintains habitat suitability. In
addition, the commenter stated the purpose of critical habitat
designation is to aid in the recovery of listed species, not simply to
protect isolated individuals or occurrences within a fragmented and
disturbed landscape. Several commenters from 2007 provided a general
statement that they did not believe we were protecting enough acreage
in critical habitat. One commenter asked for the inclusion of areas
within Bay and Gulf Counties, in the critical habitat designation.
Our Response: The longleaf pine ecosystem currently exists in the
context of a fragmented landscape. The Service has connected occupied
flatwoods salamander sites whenever it was possible, according to the
method described above in Comment 10. In most cases, however, flatwoods
salamander populations are separated from each other by large distances
and unsuitable habitat that lacks the PCEs for the species. Surveys
totaling hundreds of person-hours have been conducted to search for
flatwoods salamanders and potential, unoccupied habitat across the
range of both species. The degradation of the existing longleaf pine
flatwoods has been extensive. Although new flatwoods salamander
localities have been found over the past 15 years, most of these new
sites were in the vicinity of known records on the larger public land
bases. We believe the recovery of flatwoods salamanders is tied to
management on these public lands, where the possibility exists of
mimicking natural ecosystem processes through the use of prescribed
fire. Outside of these public lands, landscape ecosystem processes have
broken down and the potential for linking occupied flatwoods salamander
sites by re-establishing longleaf flatwoods habitat on degraded sites
is virtually non-existent. There is one historical record for flatwoods
salamanders in Gulf County and no historical record for Bay County.
There are no known flatwoods salamander populations in either county,
no known occupied habitat, and no appropriate unoccupied habitat within
an appropriate dispersal distance to allow for natural recolonization.
Therefore, we designated no critical habitat in either Bay or Gulf
Counties.
(20) Comment: One commenter quoted the statement in the original
listing rule analysis (64 FR 15691) that any potential benefit from a
critical habitat designation would be offset by an increased level of
vulnerability to collecting. The commenter inquired about whether the
designation of critical habitat for the reticulated and frosted
flatwoods salamanders was based on science or pressure from a lawsuit.
Our Response: It is true that we reassessed the need for critical
habitat based on a mediated settlement agreement (see ``Previous
Federal Actions''). We reviewed the available data on collecting
amphibians for the pet trade and on prosecutions for collecting
endangered species, and could find no evidence of collecting as a
threat to flatwoods salamanders. We reevaluated our original prudency
determination and concluded it is prudent to designate critical habitat
for the frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders. Based on the
best scientific information, we are completing this designation under
the requirements of the Act and in the best interest of the species,
using the best scientific information available.
(21) Comment: One commenter quoted a 2003 Government Accounting
Office (GAO) report that recommended delaying critical habitat
designations until recovery plans are developed. The commenter
suggested that this recommendation should be followed and designation
of critical habitat should be postponed.
Our Response: The GAO report quoted by the commenter included
recommendations to improve the process of designating critical habitat.
The report provides recommendations. There have been no regulations
promulgated requiring the completion of a recovery plan prior to
designation of critical habitat for a listed species. In fact, the Act
states that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable,
designation of critical habitat shall be made concurrently with a
species' listing determination.
(22) Comment: One commenter was under the impression that critical
[[Page 6719]]
habitat was based on ``potential, not exact situations.''
Our Response: The Service assumes that the commenter is referring
to flatwoods salamander occurrence data in this comment. All the
localities used as the basis for designating critical habitat were
occupied by either the frosted or reticulated flatwoods salamander at
the time of listing or are currently occupied.
(23) Comment: One commenter questioned why more critical habitat
was not designated on Francis Marion National Forest (FMNF) and other
public lands. The commenter urged the Service to work with the Forest
Service to expand the critical habitat designation on FMNF.
Our Response: The Service is designating all areas containing the
primary constituent elements and occupied by flatwoods salamanders, on
the FMNF and other public lands, as critical habitat. As we said in our
response to Comment 18, we do not believe that designating unoccupied
habitat for frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders provides
conservation benefit to these species if it is separated from occupied
habitat by an area of unsuitable habitat beyond the dispersal distance
of the salamanders, because the likelihood of natural recolonization of
these sites is nearly impossible.
Reclassifying the Listing of the Flatwoods Salamander Into Two Distinct
Species
(24) Comment: One commenter asked if the study that reported the
split of the flatwoods salamander into two species had a thorough peer
review and requested that the publication be presented to the public.
Our Response: Pauly et al. (2007, p. 415) recognized two species of
flatwoods salamanders in their publication in Molecular Ecology, a
peer-reviewed journal; therefore, it did undergo a thorough peer-
review, as did the proposed rule. If a member of the public would like
a copy of any of the literature cited, contact the Mississippi Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).
Listing Status of Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander
(25) Comment: One commenter asked if the Service used population
estimates to determine that the reticulated flatwoods salamander was
endangered. The commenter did ``not believe that population decline can
be derived solely from habitat decline due to both the adaptability and
unpredictability of any species will to survive.'' In general, this
commenter and several others believed that the Service does not have
sufficient data to warrant listing this species as endangered. Many
other commenters wrote in support of listing the reticulated flatwoods
salamander as endangered.
Our Response: There are no data available on numbers of individual
salamanders within any flatwoods salamander population. However, we did
not rely solely on declines of suitable habitat to determine the status
of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. As required by the Act, we
used the best scientific data available to verify existence of
historical reticulated flatwoods salamander populations, new
populations, and threats to populations. For example, of the 26
historical localities for the reticulated flatwoods salamander, only 5
(19 percent) were still occupied, primarily due to habitat loss and
degradation. These data were collected during presence-absence surveys
and during other field research unrelated to obtaining population
estimates. New data received have been incorporated into this final
rule where appropriate. There is no scientific basis for the assertion
that flatwoods salamanders may have evolved different habitat and life
history requirements from those currently described for the species.
(26) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service had made a
determination that the Bypass road on Eglin Air Force Base and Hurlburt
Field would threaten the reticulated flatwoods salamander and that the
proposed designation of the reticulated flatwoods salamander as
endangered was done to stop the road. Other commenters stated that if
we changed the designation of the reticulated flatwoods salamander to
endangered status this would mean we had in effect said ``no'' to the
Bypass road.
Our Response: The determination to uplist the reticulated flatwoods
salamander to endangered was based on the best available scientific
data on its status and the existing and potential threats to the
species. One of the threats we considered was the proposed Bypass road.
The flatwoods salamander was originally listed as threatened under the
Act in 1999 (64 FR 15691). The Bypass road, as currently envisioned,
would be constructed across military lands that are Federal property.
The authorization and permitting of this road represents a Federal
action which would trigger consultation under section 7 of the Act
since the flatwoods salamander is already listed. In addition, the
proposed Bypass road crosses jurisdictional wetlands and this action
will likely require a section 404 permit(s) per the Clean Water Act.
Thus, since the road crosses Federal property and there are Federal
permit issues, the effects on the salamander would need to be
considered regardless of a change in listing status. In fact, the
Service is in the very preliminary stages of an informal consultation
on the Bypass road and, therefore, no final determination on the
impacts of the Bypass to the flatwoods salamander has been made. In
addition, in the event of an adverse modification or jeopardy
determination, we would also explore measures to minimize the impacts
of a proposed action.
(27) Comment: One commenter inquired about whether the uplisting of
the reticulated flatwoods salamander was based on science or pressure
from a lawsuit.
Our Response: The Service determined to uplist the reticulated
flatwoods salamander based on the best scientific data available and
not as a result of a lawsuit. For more information, refer above to
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (Reticulated Flatwoods
Salamander).''
Listing Status of Frosted Flatwoods Salamander
(28) Comment: One commenter supported uplisting the frosted
flatwoods salamander to endangered since there are only 26 [sic] known
populations of this species, these populations occur in isolated clumps
that could be extirpated by a localized drought, and none of the
populations are grouped closely enough to be a metapopulation.
Our Response: Most land occupied by the frosted flatwoods
salamander (88 percent) is owned and managed by State and Federal
agencies. The Service has worked closely with these agencies to ensure
their management actions provide conservation benefits for the species.
Drought is a problem; however, 64 percent of frosted flatwoods
salamander populations are supported by more than one breeding pond and
do function as metapopulations. Due to the active flatwoods salamander
management on public lands and the existing metapopulation structure
within the species' populations, we believe the frosted flatwoods
salamander does not meet the criteria for listing as an endangered
species. Further analysis is presented above under the section
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (Frosted Flatwoods
Salamander).''
[[Page 6720]]
Procedural and Legal Considerations
(29) Comment: Many commenters requested that a second public
hearing on the proposed rule be held in Okaloosa County, Florida,
because this county is within the area where the proposed Eglin Bypass
of the Northwest Florida Transportation Corridor is to be constructed.
One commenter quoted a Northwest Florida Daily News article as saying a
Service spokesperson stated that the decision to hold the public
hearing in Pensacola was based on its being a central location of the
salamander's range. Several commenters stated they did not receive
sufficient notice of when and where the public hearing would be held.
Several other commenters stated that the notice announcing the public
hearing in the Federal Register was posted 14 days prior to the public
hearing rather than 15 days prior to the hearing as required by Service
guidance. One commenter stated that the process of providing
information regarding the proposed rule and public hearing needs
improvement.
Our Response: A request was submitted to the Service by the
Northwest Florida Transportation Corridor Authority on September 24,
2008, for a public hearing with the suggestion that the hearing be held
in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. A public hearing was held on October 22,
2008, in Pensacola, Florida. It was announced in a press release that
was submitted to over 200 newspapers in Florida, Georgia, and South
Carolina on October 8, 2008. The press release was also sent to
television stations and radio stations. The hearing announcement
published in the Federal Register on October 8, 2008 (73 FR 58922).
Announcement of the public hearing was mailed to Federal and State
representatives in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina; County
Commissioners of occupied counties in these three States; other Federal
and State agencies; conservation organizations and other non-
governmental organizations; special interest groups; and other
interested parties. The Service also purchased legal notices in the
following newspapers: Albany Herald, Northwest Florida Daily News,
Jasper County Sun, The News Herald, The Post and Courier, Pensacola
News Journal, Savannah Morning News, Tallahassee Democrat, and The
Florida Times-Union. The Service placed the notice for the public
hearing on public review in the Federal Register the day before it was
published. As a result, the notice was available to the public for 15
days before the hearing.
The Service is not required to hold a requested public hearing in
the exact location provided by the requestor. The Service selected
Pensacola as the location for the public hearing because of its central
location near major highways and an airport, to give the largest number
of people the opportunity to attend. The location and schedule for the
public hearing were selected to accommodate the general public, as well
as the requestor of the public hearing, as much as possible. Pensacola
is not central to the flatwoods salamander's range nor was this
statement made in the Northwest Florida Daily News article.
Section 4(b)(5) of the Endangered Species Act states, ``[w]ith
respect to any regulation proposed by the Secretary to implement a
determination, designation, or revision referred to in subsection
(a)(1) or (3) [proposed or final rule to list a species as endangered
or threatened, or proposed or final rule to designate any habitat of
such species to be critical habitat], the Secretary shall * * *
promptly hold one public hearing on the proposed regulation if any
person files a request for such a hearing within 45 days after the date
of publication of general notice.'' We have met the regulatory
requirement.
(30) Comment: One commenter stated that the notice in the Federal
Register announcing the public hearing did not provide information on
how to obtain reasonable accommodations and this is a violation of
American Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
Our Response: The notice in the Federal Register announcing the
public hearing provided information on how to contact the Service for
further information including the name, address, telephone number, and
fax number of the Field Supervisor of the Mississippi Field Office; and
the number of the Federal Information Relay Service to call if a
telecommunications device for the deaf was required. We did not receive
any requests for additional information regarding how to obtain
reasonable accommodations for the public hearing.
(31) Comment: One commenter stated that the notice in the Federal
Register announcing the public hearing was not published in Okaloosa
County's local newspaper, the Northwest Florida Daily News.
Our Response: The public hearing notice was published in the
Northwest Florida Daily News on October 10, 2008.
(32) Comment: Several commenters suggested there may be members of
the public that were denied their right to submit public comments
because the online portal for submitting public comments at
www.regulations.gov was inaccessible for approximately a week beginning
on October 14, 2008.
Our Response: The public comment submission portion of the online
portal for this proposed rule was inaccessible during the time period
from October 14, 2008, through October 22, 2008, due to an
administrative error. This occurred because, although the comment
period was extended to a date 2 weeks after the public hearing, this
information did not immediately reach the portal controller. However,
the problem was corrected as soon as the Service knew of it and the
portal was operational until the end of the extended comment period on
November 3, 2008. Comments could still be received by mail and this
option was provided in the proposed rule and the supplemental
information (73 FR 54125; September 18, 2008). In addition, because
this online system is new, we still accepted comments provided by e-
mail, fax, or mail at our Washington office location or received at
either the Mississippi or Panama City field offices until November 3,
2008. All comments we received were considered in the preparation of
this final rule. The comment period for the proposed rule was open for
a total of 83 days, from August 13, 2008, to November 3, 2008. We
believe this provided ample opportunity for the public to comment on
the proposed rule.
Best Scientific Information
(33) Comment: One commenter stated that the proper application of
herbicides most commonly used in modern silviculture is unlikely to
pose a risk to flatwoods salamanders or cause adverse modification of
critical habitat. A peer reviewer from 2007 stated that habitat
management to benefit flatwoods salamanders may require herbicide use
in dry wetlands or at timber harvest or replanting to improve habitat
conditions.
Our Response: Herbicide use in dry wetlands or at timber harvest or
re-planting may be compatible with habitat management to benefit
flatwoods salamanders. When a property owner has developed management
plans that include the use of herbicides at a site known to be occupied
by flatwoods salamanders, we recommend coordination with the local
Service field office covering the area. We still consider the use of
herbicides as a threat due to the potential that improper application
will result in toxicity to salamanders.
(34) Comment: One commenter encouraged the Service to not overstate
the role of modern forest management in
[[Page 6721]]
the historical loss and degradation of flatwoods salamander habitat.
Our Response: We described many threats to flatwoods salamander
habitat, both past and present. We agree with the commenter that clear-
cutting at the turn of the century was not done to standards of modern
forestry and that many sites in plantation forestry have been converted
from agricultural land rather than forested land. We do not believe
conversion of native longleaf pine flatwoods to plantation forests is a
significant threat to flatwoods salamanders at this time. Nevertheless,
some aspects of modern forestry, such as use of site preparation
techniques that remove stumps and alter or destroy below-ground soil
structure (such as old root channels), continue to present a threat to
flatwoods salamanders. We present further analysis above under
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander.''
Economic Impacts and Economic Analysis (EA)
(35) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service should
consider the positive economic impacts of critical habitat designation.
Designation of critical habitat provides support for maintaining
healthy ecosystems which are the foundation of healthy economies.
Response: As indicated in Section 1.3.3 of the EA: ``Rather than
rely on economic measures, the Service believes that the direct
benefits of the proposed rule are best expressed in biological terms
that can be weighed against the expected cost impacts of the
rulemaking.''
(36) Comment: Several commenters stated that the draft EA failed to
assess the potential economic impacts that could occur if the Bypass
Road proposed by the Northwest Florida Transportation Corridor
Authority is affected by the presence of critical habitat on Eglin Air
Force Base (Unit RFS-4, Subunit C in the proposed rule). These comments
generally argued that, by not considering the potential impacts to the
proposed Bypass Road project, the EA understates the potential costs of
designation. These commenters argued that the Bypass Road would: (1)
Reduce congestion, (2) provide additional hurricane evacuation
alternatives, (3) reduce highway traffic accidents, (4) increase
homeland security, (5) improve energy distribution, (6) benefit small
businesses, (7) allow access to the international airport opening in
Bay County, and (8) substantially increase regional jobs and tax
revenue. Lastly, several commenters express concerns that the Northwest
Florida Transportation Corridor Authority (NWFTCA) was not a primary
source of information for the EA.
Response: In this final rule, areas within Eglin Air Force Base and
Hurlburt Field have been removed from the critical habitat designation.
Thus, this designation will not impact the proposed Bypass Road
project. NWFTCA could not be reached to discuss these impacts prior to
the public comment period, and thus was not included as a source in the
draft EA (see Section 4.2.1.2). However, to provide greater context for
this issue, the final EA describes the benefits that could result from
construction of the Bypass Road. The final EA also presents the results
of a technical memorandum by HDR/Decision Economics, Inc. (HDR),
developed for the NWFTCA, that documents the potential costs of not
constructing the Bypass Road.
(37) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service did not
consider public lands in the EA of critical habitat designation.
Response: The draft and final EAs do consider potential impacts to
publicly owned lands. Specifically, Section 2 describes potential
impacts to publicly owned timberlands, and Section 4 describes
potential impacts to fire management and species management activities
on these lands.
(38) Comment: One commenter asked about the cost to taxpayers of
elevating the reticulated flatwoods salamander to endangered status.
Response: The purpose of the EA is to describe the potential
economic and other impacts that could result from critical habitat
designation (see Section 1). The EA is not intended to address the
economic impact of a change in the status of a species. In addition,
under the Endangered Species Act, the Service does not take into
account the economic impacts of listing decisions, only the impact of
critical habitat designation. Therefore, an EA of the effects of
listing the reticulated flatwoods salamander as endangered has not been
conducted.
(39) Comment: One commenter stated that excluding Holley Outlying
Landing Field could result in additional development in the area, which
would be potentially damaging to the local economy. The commenter
indicated that negative effects could include a flooded housing market,
decreased housing values, or increased insurance rates from building in
a hurricane prominent area.
Response: As described in Section 3.2.1 of the final EA, the
development analysis evaluates potential impacts to undeveloped land
that is currently zoned for future rural, residential, industrial, or
privately owned commercial development. Because Holley Outlying Landing
Field is not currently zoned for development, the analysis assumes it
will not be developed in the future without zoning changes. Absent
available information on when or where such zoning changes may occur in
future years, the analysis does not quantify either positive or
negative impacts of any resulting development. The Final Rule exempts
this area from the critical habitat designation.
(40) Comment: One commenter stated that Section 3.2.2 of the EA
unreasonably assumes that impacts to development activities occur only
on parcels that contain wetlands within proposed critical habitat. This
commenter stated that future consultations may lead to critical habitat
considerations of parcels not containing wetlands. The commenter stated
that the EA undervalues the potential for development to be precluded
on uplands based on critical habitat designation.
Response: Section 3 of the final EA provided estimates of impacts
to any developable parcels that intersect wetlands. Historically,
consultations have not occurred in areas without wetlands due to the
lack of a Federal nexus (see Section 3.2). Note that the analysis does
consider the potential impacts to development activities on the entire
parcel, not just that portion that is wetland.
(41) Comment: One commenter stated that input-output models should
be used to estimate impacts on Federal lands to properly consider
impacts to small businesses. This commenter stated that, absent such
modeling, the report focuses only on private property values.
Response: Section 1.2.2.2 of the EA indicates that input-output
models may provide useful information about the scale and scope of
localized economic impacts. For changes in activities on Federal lands
designated as critical habitat, the Service does not anticipate
regional economic impacts. Note that, although this final rule exempts
Eglin Air Force Base from the designation, the final EA presents the
results of HDR's regional EA of the proposed Bypass Road, developed for
NWFTCA.
(42) Comment: One commenter stated that the EA makes the invalid
assumption that incremental impacts occur only in the migratory
corridor areas, and that this assumption ignores the added review and
protection afforded to lands designated as critical habitat that are
not located in the migratory corridors. The commenter
[[Page 6722]]
also stated that there are other reasons for Federal consultation
besides Corps permitting that have been ignored.
Response: As noted in Section 3 of the final EA the only Federal
nexus that could be identified within the proposed critical habitat
areas is through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which directs the
Corps to permit dredge and fill activities in wetlands. Aside from
additional administrative costs of section 7 consultations, the EA was
unable to identify any added costs specifically related to the
designation of critical habitat outside of the migratory corridors.
(43) Comment: One commenter stated that Section 2.7 of the EA
forecasts no section 7 consultations related to development activities.
Response: Section 3 of the final EA estimates impacts to
developable lands that intersect wetlands. However, available
information does not allow forecasting of either the timing or
frequency of development-related consultations in future years. Thus,
while addressing the potential for a reduction in the option value of
developable lands, the final EA does not estimate the cost of
consultations associated with these activities.
(44) Comment: One commenter stated that the EA does not estimate
the impacts of possible future land-use changes and re-zonings that
would accommodate greater levels of development.
Response: As discussed in Section 3.2.1 of the final EA, available
information does not allow forecasting of when and where any such re-
zonings may take place in future years.
(45) Comment: One commenter stated that Section 3.2.1 of the EA
makes the unreasonable assumption that existing residential,
commercial, and industrial developments are unaffected by salamander
conservation and are, therefore, removed from the analysis. The
commenter also indicated that redevelopment in these areas may affect
salamander habitat conservation efforts, particularly areas with
extensive open space.
Response: As stated in Section 3.2.1 of the draft EA, ``[b]ecause
the threat to the salamander of development involves disturbance of
soil structure and the removal of trees, existing residential,
commercial, and industrial developments are assumed to be unaffected by
salamander conservation and are therefore removed from the analysis
according to available aerial photography.'' Based on this aerial
photography, existing residential, commercial and industrial
developments were excluded from the analysis; however, all currently
open spaces were included in the analysis of developable acreage that
may be affected by salamander conservation efforts.
(46) Comment: One commenter stated that the EA undervalues the
potential for development to be precluded on uplands based on critical
habitat designation.
Response: The EA identifies no Federal nexus that would cause the
private owners of these acres to modify their behavior, as indicated in
the introduction to Section 3 of the EA.
(47) Comment: One commenter stated that Section 3.2.3 of the EA
utilizes unreasonably low mitigation ratios, which do not accurately
reflect current regulatory requirements or costs.
Response: Section 3.2 of the EA quantifies the potential economic
impacts to development activities under two scenarios. The low-end
scenario uses a mitigation ratio based on past salamander consultations
on development projects. The high-end scenario assumes development is
entirely precluded. Therefore, we believe we have captured the entire
possible range of economic impacts to development activities.
(48) Comment: One commenter noted that Apalachicola National Forest
has proposed an amendment to their Forest Plan which would provide a
higher level of protection to the species. Particular changes include:
(1) Creating ``salamander conservation areas'' that encompass proposed
critical habitat and other areas offering high potential as flatwoods
salamander habitat; (2) no conducting of extensive mechanical site
preparation or other actions that cause significant soil disturbance
within the primary and secondary zones; and (3) conducting harvests in
such a manner that will minimize rutting and not alter hydrology within
the primary and secondary zones.
Response: This comment has been noted in the final EA, and costs
related to developing the amendment have been incorporated into Section
2 of the analysis. Based on written communication with National Forests
in Florida on December 5, 2008, it is unlikely that the amendment will
impose additional timber management costs in future years.
Comments From States
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt a
regulation consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' We
received no comments on the 2008 proposed rule from State agencies. We
did receive comments from two State agency biologists, one employed by
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the other by
Georgia Department of Natural Resources; however, they were peer
reviewers and their comments are addressed under that section. Comments
were received on the 2007 proposed rule from the office of the
governor, the State of Florida; the Florida Department of
Transportation; and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.
Comments From States on 2007 Proposed Rule
(49) Comment: The office of the governor, the State of Florida,
provided the comment from the Office of Citizen Services that the
information on designation of critical habitat was passed on to the
Executive Director for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission.
Our Response: We have noted these comments.
(50) Comment: The Central Environmental Management Office provided
comments on behalf of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).
The commenter stated that a flatwoods salamander habitat evaluation
model is used by FDOT to assess potential impacts to flatwoods
salamander habitat as a result of construction activities on a project
by project basis. So far, FDOT believed that this method had been
successful as a means of coordination with the Service and developing
approved avoidance and minimization measures. FDOT believed designation
of critical habitat could affect future projects; however, they will
continue to coordinate with the Service to avoid and minimize impacts
to flatwoods salamander
Our Response: We have noted these comments.
(51) Comment: In comments on the 2007 proposed rule, the South
Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) requested that the
Service remove the Santee Coastal Reserve (SCR), Charleston County,
South Carolina, from critical habitat designation. They provided a
SCDNR Board approved management plan, dated September 13, 2002, which
provided information on the flatwoods salamander and management
recommendations derived from the final listing package for the species.
Our Response: In 2007, SCDNR provided the Service with general
information and management recommendations reworded from the ``no
take'' guidelines presented in the original flatwoods salamander
listing
[[Page 6723]]
rule from 1999. They did not provide a species-specific management plan
for the flatwoods salamander, nor evidence that management actions have
been implemented to benefit the species in the past, nor assurances
that they will be conducted in the future. Prescribed fire is mentioned
as an important component of habitat management for the flatwoods
salamander; however, no specifics regarding the use of prescribed fire
as a management tool are mentioned. The Service considers this a
deficiency in the plan. The Service received no comments from SCDNR on
the 2008 proposed rule. The Service does not believe the plan provided
by SCDNR in 2007 provides benefits of excluding the SCR from critical
habitat designation that outweigh the benefits of inclusion. Therefore,
the Service is including SCR in the final critical habitat designation.
Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule
In preparing this final listing rule and critical habitat
designation for the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated
flatwoods salamander, we reviewed and considered comments from the
public on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the
flatwoods salamander published on February 7, 2007 (72 FR 5856), and on
the proposed determination of endangered status for the reticulated
flatwoods salamander, proposed designation of critical habitat for the
frosted flatwoods salamander and reticulated flatwoods salamander, and
our announcement of the availability of the DEA published on August 13,
2008 (73 FR 47258). We likewise reviewed and considered comments from
our notice providing supplemental information on the status of the
frosted flatwoods salamander published on September 18, 2008 (73 FR
54125), and from the public hearing held on October 22, 2008. As a
result of public comments and peer review, we made changes to our
proposed designation of critical habitat for the frosted flatwoods
salamander and reticulated flatwoods salamander resulting in a
reduction of 3,205 acres (977 hectares). These changes are as follows:
(1) We removed the unit containing occupied reticulated flatwoods
salamander habitat on Navy Outlying Landing Field Holley, Santa Rosa
County, Florida, because this area meets our criteria for exclusion
(see Comment 16 and ``Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act'' for
more information).
(2) We removed the units containing occupied reticulated flatwoods
salamander habitat on Eglin Air Force Base and Hurlburt Field, Okaloosa
and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida, because these areas meet our criteria
for exclusion (see Comment 15 and ``Application of Section 4(a)(3) of
the Act'' for more information).
(3) We removed the unit containing portions of Point Washington
State Forest, Walton County, Florida, because the data on which the
occupancy determination was based are considered to be in error (see
Comment 2 for more information).
(4) We removed the unit containing portions of Tate's Hell State
Forest, Franklin County, Florida, because the habitat within this unit
no longer contains the PCEs (see Comment 3 for more information).
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) That may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(ii) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the
measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods
and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities
associated with scientific resources management such as research,
census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem
cannot otherwise be relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding,
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. Section 7 of the Act requires consultation on Federal actions
that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat
does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness,
reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does
not allow government or public access to private lands. Such
designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery,
or enhancement measures by the private landowner. Where a landowner
seeks or requests Federal agency funding or authorization that may
affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation
requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply.
For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within
the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing must
contain the physical and biological features that are essential to the
conservation of the species, and be included only if those features may
require special management consideration or protection. Critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life
cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found those
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
species). Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in areas
outside of the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it
is listed only when we determine that those areas are essential for the
conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Act, published
in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), and Section 515
of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal
Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) and our associated Information
Quality Guidelines provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide
guidance to ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
When determining which areas should be designated as critical
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the listing
package for the species. Additional information sources may include the
recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals,
conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status
surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished
materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge.
[[Page 6724]]
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time.
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons,
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly,
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available
information at the time of designation will not control the direction
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or
other species conservation planning efforts if new information
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Methods
As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific
data available in determining areas that contain the features that are
essential to the conservation of the frosted flatwoods salamander and
the reticulated flatwoods salamander. This includes information from
the proposed listing rule for the flatwoods salamander (62 FR 65787;
December 16, 1997), final listing rule for the flatwoods salamander (64
FR 15691; April 1, 1999), the previous proposed rule for designation of
critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander (72 FR 5856; February 7,
2007), site visits, soil and species map coverages, data compiled in
the Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina Natural Heritage databases and
individual State databases, and data supplied by Eglin Air Force Base,
Fort Stewart Military Installation, Hurlburt Field, Townsend Bombing
Range, Apalachicola National Forest, Francis Marion National Forest,
and St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge.
We also reviewed the available information pertaining to historical
and current distribution, ecology, life history, and habitat
requirements of the frosted flatwoods salamander and reticulated
flatwoods salamander. This material included data in reports submitted
by biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; research
published in peer-reviewed scientific publications; museum records;
technical reports and unpublished field observations by Service, State,
and other experienced biologists; additional notes and communications
with qualified biologists or experts; and regional Geographic
Information System (GIS) coverages.
All frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamander occurrence records
for sites occupied at the time of listing and subsequently occupied
sites (typically breeding ponds) were plotted on maps using ArcMap
(Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer GIS
program, as the initial step in generating critical habitat units. For
purposes of determining occupancy at the time of listing, we have used
the original data of listing of the combined species. Polygons were
then computer-generated by overlaying these occurrence locations with
circles of a 1,500-ft (457-m) radius as a method to estimate the
activity area around a breeding pond (see 72 FR 5861 (February 7, 2007)
for a further discussion of the rationale for choosing this distance
for the activity area). The area circumscribed by a circle of this
radius would be 162 ac (66 ha). These polygons were used as a starting
point to delineate the amount of wetland and upland habitat occupied by
salamanders at each occurrence.
Since we have determined that breeding sites within 2 miles (3.2
km) of each other could be considered part of the same metapopulation
(see discussion above under section entitled Space for Individual and
Population Growth and Normal Behavior), polygons within this distance
of each other were combined to create areas containing multiple ponds
connected by upland habitat corridors. Research on ambystomatid
salamanders indicates that they need high terrestrial survival or
immigration to persist (Taylor et al. 2005, p. 799). Thus, a flatwoods
salamander population requires a sufficient amount of terrestrial
habitat to ensure survival of adults in upland habitat, or, if needed,
immigration of juveniles to the population from nearby breeding ponds.
Combining polygons in the above manner provides a greater probability
that habitat within a unit or subunit will support the needs of both
species of flatwoods salamander long-term.
After the polygons were constructed, they were overlaid on aerial
photography. The aerial photography was analyzed to verify the
occurrence of PCEs and their distribution within the polygons. In some
cases, site visits were made to determine presence of PCEs. Some
polygons were discarded as they lacked the PCEs. In other polygons, we
adjusted individual unit boundaries based on the presence or absence of
the PCEs. Units constructed by merging polygons were also re-assessed
to be sure the connecting habitat contained the PCEs.
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with Section 3(5)(A) of the Act and regulations at 40
CFR 424.12, in determining which areas occupied at the time of listing
to designate as critical habitat, we consider those physical and
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the
species to be the primary constituent elements laid out in appropriate
quantity and spatial arrangement for conservation of the species, and
that may require special management considerations or protection.
These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derived the specific primary constituent elements required for
the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods
salamander based on their biological needs.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and Normal Behavior
The frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders are terrestrial
species of the longleaf pine ecosystem. Flatwoods salamanders spend
most of their lives underground and occur in forested habitat
consisting of fire-maintained, open-canopied, flatwoods and savannas
dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), with naturally occurring
slash pine (P. elliotti) in wetter areas. Historically, fire-tolerant
longleaf pine dominated the uplands, whereas slash pine, being less
fire-tolerant, was confined principally to wetlands, wetland edges, and
the wetter portions of pine flatwoods. Means et al. (1996, pp. 434-435)
summarized the natural distribution of slash pine in reference to the
flatwoods salamander and
[[Page 6725]]
concluded that natural slash pine habitats constituted only a minor
fraction of the species' upland habitat. Much of the original flatwoods
habitat has been converted to pine (often slash pine) plantations and
become a closed-canopy forest unsuitable as habitat for the flatwoods
salamander. Nevertheless, flatwoods salamanders do occur on some slash
and loblolly pine (P. taeda) plantation sites. The extent of habitat
degradation has been variable among pine plantations. On some
plantations, the original hydrology, ground cover, and soil structure
have been less severely altered, and these are the areas where remnant
frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamander populations still occur.
Pine flatwoods and savannas are typically characterized by low,
flat topography, and relatively poorly drained, acidic, sandy soil that
becomes seasonally saturated. In the past, this ecosystem was
characterized by open pine woodlands maintained by frequent fires.
Naturally ignited by lightning during spring and early summer, these
flatwoods historically burned at intervals ranging from 1 to 4 years
(Clewell 1989, p. 226). In some areas, such as southwest Georgia, the
topography of pine flatwoods can vary from nearly flat to gently
rolling hills. The ground cover of the pine flatwoods-savanna ecosystem
is typically dominated by wiregrass in the Gulf Coastal Plain, which is
often joined or replaced by dropseed in the Atlantic Coastal Plain.
Many other herbaceous plants are found in the ground cover and plant
diversity is usually very high.
During the breeding season, adult frosted and reticulated flatwoods
salamanders leave their subterranean retreats and migrate to breeding
sites during rains associated with passing cold fronts. Throughout
their range, the salamanders breed at ephemeral (seasonally flooded)
isolated ponds (not connected to other water bodies) embedded within
the mesic (moderate moisture) to intermediate-mesic flatwoods--savanna
communities occupied by post-larval and adult salamanders (Palis and
Means 2005, pp. 608-609). There are some variations in vegetation,
geology, and soils among geographic areas within the range of the
salamander (most notably, differences between the Gulf Coast and
Atlantic Coastal Plain communities); however, basic characteristics are
fairly similar throughout. Both forested uplands and isolated wetlands
(see further discussion of isolated wetlands in section ``Sites for
breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring,'' below) are needed
to provide space for individual and population growth and normal
behavior.
The distance between the wetland breeding and upland terrestrial
habitats of post-larval and adult salamanders can vary considerably. In
the final listing rule the Service used an estimate of 1,476 ft (450 m)
as the radius of a flatwoods salamander's principal activity area
around a breeding pond based on research summarized in Semlitsch (1998,
pp. 1115-1117) on this species and other species in its genus (U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1999, p. 15697). However, according to Ashton
and Ashton (2005, p. 65), flatwoods salamanders have been documented up
to 5,576 ft (1,700 m) from breeding ponds. We used this distance
(rounding to 1 mile (1.6 km)) as the maximum dispersal distance for
flatwoods salamanders. Therefore, breeding sites within twice this
distance (2 miles (3.2 km)) could be considered in close enough
proximity to be considered part of the same metapopulation (Palis 1997,
p. 62).
Food, Water, Air, Light, or Other Nutritional or Physiological
Requirements
Post-larval frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders eat small
invertebrates that share their underground habit. Records exist of
earthworms that have been found in the stomachs of dissected adult
salamanders (Goin 1950, p. 314). Larval flatwoods salamanders most
likely prey on a variety of aquatic invertebrates and perhaps small
vertebrates such as other amphibian larvae (Palis and Means 2005, p.
608). Data from a recent study of larval food habits found that
freshwater crustaceans dominated stomach contents of preserved, wild-
caught individuals from Florida and South Carolina (Whiles et al. 2004,
p. 208). This indicates a preference for freshwater crustaceans or
perhaps is an indication that these invertebrates are the most abundant
or most easily captured prey in breeding ponds.
Within the pine uplands, a diverse and abundant herbaceous layer
consisting of native species is important to maintain the prey base for
adult frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders. Wetland water
quality is important to maintain the aquatic invertebrate fauna eaten
by larval salamanders. An unpolluted wetland with water free of
predaceous fish, sediment, pesticides, and the chemicals associated
with road runoff, is important to maintain the aquatic invertebrate
fauna eaten by larval salamanders.
Cover or Shelter
At wetland sites, developing larval frosted and reticulated
flatwoods salamanders hide in submerged herbaceous vegetation during
the day (Palis and Means 2005, p. 608) as protection from predators.
Thus, an abundant herbaceous community in these ponds is important for
cover.
Generally, flatwoods salamander breeding pond and upland habitats
are separated by an ecotone (area of transitional habitat) through
which salamanders must move during pre- and post-breeding events (Palis
1997, p. 58). The graminaceous (grass-like) ecotone represents a
distinct habitat type and is important for maintaining connectivity
between aquatic and terrestrial habitats. When the ecotone provides
cover and appropriate microclimatic conditions, survival of migratory
salamanders is enhanced. Studies of migratory success in post-
metamorphic salamanders have demonstrated the importance of high levels
of survival of these individuals to population maintenance and
persistence (Rothermel 2004, pp. 1544-1545).
Post-larval and adult frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders
occupy upland flatwoods sites where they live underground in crayfish
burrows, root channels, or burrows of their own making (Goin 1950, p.
311; Neill 1951, p. 765; Mount 1975, pp. 98-99; Ashton and Ashton 2005,
pp. 63, 65, 68-71). The occurrence of these below-ground habitats is
dependent upon protection of the soil structure within flatwoods
salamander terrestrial sites.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing of Offspring
Adult frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders move from the
uplands to breed in ponds that are typically acidic, tannin-stained,
isolated, ephemeral wetlands (marsh-like depressions) (Palis 1997, pp.
53, 58; Safer 2001, pp. 5, 12). Breeding occurs from late September to
December when ponds flood due to rainy weather associated with cold
fronts. If rainfall is insufficient to result in adequate pond
flooding, breeding may not occur or, if larvae do develop, they may die
before metamorphosis. Egg development from deposition to hatching
occurs in approximately 2 weeks, but eggs do not hatch until they are
inundated (Palis 1995, pp. 352, 353). Larval salamanders usually
metamorphose in March or April after an 11-to-18-week larval period
(Palis 1995, p. 352). Ponds dry shortly thereafter. A cycle of filling
and drying is essential for maintaining the appropriate habitat
conditions of these wetlands.
[[Page 6726]]
The overstory within breeding ponds is typically dominated by pond-
cypress (Taxodium ascendens [=T. distichum var. imbricarium; Lickey and
Walker 2002, p. 131)], blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), and
slash pine (Palis 1997, pp. 58, 59). An open midstory is often present
as well, and dominant species include the myrtle-leaved holly (Illex
myrtifolia) and other shrubs and small trees (Palis 1997, pp. 58, 59).
When they are dry, breeding ponds burn naturally due to periodic
wildfires, especially during late spring and summer. Depending on
canopy closure and midstory, the herbaceous ground cover of breeding
sites can vary considerably (Palis 1997, pp. 58, 59). However,
flatwoods salamander larvae are typically found in those portions of
breeding sites containing abundant herbaceous vegetation. The ground
cover is dominated by graminaceous species. The floor of breeding sites
generally consists of relatively firm mud with little or no peat.
Burrows of crayfish (primarily genus Procambarus) are a common feature
of flatwoods salamander breeding sites. Breeding sites are typically
encircled by a bunchgrass-dominated (wiregrass or dropseed)
graminaceous ecotone (see discussion of ecotone above). Small fish,
such as pygmy sunfishes (Elassoma spp.), mosquitofish (Gambusia
holbrookii), and banded sunfish (Enneacanthus obesus) may be present,
but large predaceous species are absent (Palis 1997, pp. 58, 60).
Primary Constituent Elements for the Frosted Flatwoods Salamander and
the Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander
Within the geographical area we know to be occupied by the frosted
flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods salamander, we must
identify the PCEs that may require special management considerations or
protections.
Based on the needs of the species, as described above, and our
current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the
species, we have determined that the frosted flatwoods salamander and
reticulated flatwoods salamander PCEs are:
1. Breeding habitat. Small (generally less than 1 to 10 acres (ac)
(less than 0.4 to 4.0 hectares (ha)), acidic, depressional standing
bodies of fresh water (wetlands) that:
(a) Are seasonally flooded by rainfall in late fall or early winter
and dry in late spring or early summer;
(b) Are geographically isolated from other water bodies;
(c) Occur within pine flatwoods-savanna communities;
(d) Are dominated by grasses and grass-like species in the ground
layer and overstories of pond-cypress, blackgum, and slash pine;
(e) Have a relatively open canopy, necessary to maintain the
herbaceous component that serves as cover for flatwoods salamander
larvae and their aquatic invertebrate prey; and
(f) Typically have a burrowing crayfish fauna, but, due to periodic
drying, the breeding ponds typically lack large, predatory fish (for
example, Lepomis (sunfish), Micropterus (bass), Amia calva (bowfin)).
2. Non-breeding habitat. Upland pine flatwoods-savanna habitat that
is open, mesic woodland maintained by frequent fires and that:
(a) Is within 1,500 ft (457 m) of adjacent and accessible breeding
ponds;
(b) Contains crayfish burrows or other underground habitat that the
flatwoods salamander depends upon for food, shelter, and protection
from the elements and predation;
(c) Has an organic hardpan in the soil profile, which inhibits
subsurface water penetration and typically results in moist soils with
water often at or near the surface under normal conditions; and
(d) Often have wiregrasses as the dominant grasses in abundant
herbaceous ground cover, which supports the herbivorous invertebrates
that serve as a food source for the flatwoods salamander.
3. Dispersal habitat. Upland habitat areas between non-breeding and
breeding habitat that allow for salamander movement between such sites
and that is characterized by:
(a) A mix of vegetation types representing a transition between
wetland and upland vegetation (ecotone);
(b) An open canopy and abundant native herbaceous species;
(c) Moist soils as described in PCE 2; and
(d) Subsurface structure, such as that created by deep litter cover
or burrows, which provides shelter for salamanders during seasonal
movements.
This designation is designed for the conservation of the physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of the species,
which support the life-history functions of the species, through the
identification of the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement of
areas containing the PCEs. Even though per the Act, each unit must
contain at least one or more PCEs, in this designation all units
designated as critical habitat contain all of these PCEs and support
multiple life processes.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the occupied
areas contain the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, and whether these features may require
special management considerations or protection. It is recognized that
numerous activities in and adjacent to the unit designated as critical
habitat, as described in this final rule, may affect one or more of the
PCEs found in that unit. These activities include, but are not limited
to, those listed in the Application of the ``Adverse Modification''
Standard (AMS) section as activities that may destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat. Special management of the PCEs for the frosted
flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods salamander and their
habitat may be required for the following threats: Direct and indirect
impacts of land use conversions, primarily urban development and
conversion to agriculture and pine plantations; stump removal and other
soil-disturbing activities which destroy the below-ground structure
within forest soils; fire suppression and low fire frequencies; wetland
destruction and degradation; and random effects of drought or floods.
Specific details regarding these threats can be found in the proposed
listing rule (62 FR 65787), the final listing rule (64 FR 15691), and
above in the section entitled, ``Summary of Factors Affecting the
Species.'' Due to one or more of the threats described above, and as
discussed in more detail in the individual unit descriptions below, we
find that all areas occupied at the time of listing that we are
designating as critical habitat contain PCEs that may require special
management considerations or protections to ensure the conservation of
the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods
salamander.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
We began our analysis by evaluating both species of flatwoods
salamander in the context of their distribution within their historic
range, to determine what portion of their range must be included to
ensure conservation of both species. We assessed the critical life-
history components of flatwoods salamanders, as they relate to habitat.
Flatwoods salamanders require small, acidic, depressional standing
bodies of freshwater for breeding, upland pine flatwoods-savanna
habitat that is open, mesic and maintained by fire for non-
[[Page 6727]]
breeding habitat, and ecotonal habitat areas between non-breeding and
breeding habitat that allow for salamander movement. Therefore, all
areas meeting these requirements were considered for inclusion.
To determine which areas should be designated as critical habitat,
we then evaluated where the necessary physical and biological features
of flatwoods salamander habitat occur within areas occupied at the time
of listing and for areas unoccupied at listing, whether these areas
were essential to the conservation of the species. Detailed data on
specific locations are included in the unit description in the Critical
Habitat Designation section of this final rule. We considered the
following criteria in the selection of areas that contain the essential
features for the frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders and
focused on designating units: (1) Throughout the current geographic and
ecological distribution of the species; (2) that retain or provide for
connectivity between breeding sites that allows for the continued
existence of viable and essential metapopulations (populations at
individual ponds that interbreed over time), despite fluctuations in
the status of subpopulations; (3) that possess large continuous blocks
of occupied habitat, representing source populations or unique
ecological characteristics; and (4) that contain sufficient upland
habitat around each breeding location to allow for sufficient survival
and recruitment to maintain a breeding population over the long term.
We selected areas for the frosted flatwoods salamander and the
reticulated salamander that were occupied at the time of listing, based
on the best scientific data available, which possess those physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species that
may require special management considerations or protection. In
addition, we included two areas subsequently identified as occupied by
the frosted flatwoods salamander and essential to the conservation of
the species. We found that the two newer (post-listing) occurrence
records were in close proximity to areas already known to support the
frosted flatwoods salamander. We identified critical habitat units that
were occupied at the time of listing based on: (1) Presence of the
defined PCEs; (2) density of flatwoods salamander occurrences; and (3)
kind, amount, and quality of habitat associated with those occurrences.
We identified critical habitat units that were not occupied at the time
of listing based on: (1) Density of flatwoods salamander occurrences;
(2) kind, amount, and quality of habitat associated with those
occurrences; and (3) a determination that these areas are essential to
the conservation of the species.
The currently occupied habitat of the frosted flatwoods salamander
and the reticulated flatwoods salamander is highly localized and
fragmented. Due to several drought events, post-listing observations of
salamanders have been made at breeding ponds in only a small portion of
their occupied range and no population estimates are currently
available. As with many rare species, especially pond-breeding
amphibians with underground adult life stages, detection probabilities
are low even in ``normal'' weather years (Bailey et al. 2004, pp. 2463-
2464). Flatwoods salamanders are particularly susceptible to drought,
as breeding cannot occur if breeding ponds do not receive adequate
rainfall. We know that isolated populations, including those of the
frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders, are highly susceptible
to random events. Protection of a single, isolated, minimally viable
population risks the extirpation or extinction of a species as a result
of harsh environmental conditions, catastrophic events, or genetic
deterioration over several generations (Kautz and Cox 2001, p. 59). To
reduce the risk of extinction through these processes, it is important
to establish multiple protected subpopulations across the landscape
(Soul[eacute] and Simberloff 1986, pp. 25-35; Wiens 1996, pp. 73-74).
We have determined that all but four of the areas occupied at the time
of listing contain the features essential to the conservation of the
species; as a result, these four areas were not part of the
designation. The two units occupied since the time of listing are
essential areas for the conservation of the species and were therefore
included in the designation.
We are designating critical habitat on lands that we have
determined were occupied at the time of listing and that contain
sufficient PCEs to support life-history functions essential for the
conservation of the species. In addition, we are designating two areas
that we have not been able to determine were occupied at the time of
listing (they occur within the same geographical area but were
discovered after 1999), and we believe to be essential to the
conservation of the species.
The lands designated as critical habitat collectively contain
small, and in some cases, isolated, populations of the species. These
small populations are at a high risk of extinction due to random events
and human-induced threats, such as urban-agricultural development and
habitat degradation due to fire suppression and hydrological
alterations. Thus, we believe all lands within the critical habitat
designation are essential for the persistence and conservation of the
frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods salamander,
and meet the criteria as set forth above. We believe that with proper
protection and management, the critical habitat within this
designation, and those areas exempted due to the Sikes Act, are
sufficient to provide for the conservation of the species. We are not
designating any areas outside the geographical area presently occupied
by these species because we are unaware of any other suitable habitat
for these species outside their currently occupied range.
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as
buildings, paved areas, and other structures that lack PCEs for frosted
flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods salamander. The
scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of
such developed areas. Any such structures, and the land under them,
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps
of this rule have been excluded by text in this final rule and are not
designated as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions involving
these areas would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless
the specific action would affect the primary constituent elements in
the adjacent critical habitat.
Critical Habitat Designation
For the reticulated flatwoods salamander, we are designating 8
units, some of which are divided into subunits (for a total of 16 units
and subunits), as critical habitat. For the frosted flatwoods
salamander, we are designating 6 units, some of which are divided into
subunits (for a total of 19 units and subunits), as critical habitat.
The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current
best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat
for the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the frosted flatwoods
salamander. We are presenting the data geographically from west to east
and thus the critical habitat for the reticulated flatwoods salamander
is described first below.
[[Page 6728]]
Table 1 shows the occupied units for the reticulated flatwoods
salamander.
Table 1--Occupancy of Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander (RFS) by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently
occupied (but
Unit Occupied at not occupied Size of unit in acres (ac) (hectares
time of listing at time of (ha))
listing)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFS-1................................ X ............... 687 ac (278 ha).
RFS-2, Subunit A..................... X ............... 162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-2, Subunit B..................... X ............... 162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-3, Subunit A..................... X ............... 148 ac (60 ha).
RFS-3, Subunit B..................... X ............... 57 ac (23 ha).
RFS-6, Subunit A..................... X ............... 213 ac (86 ha).
RFS-6, Subunit B..................... X ............... 162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-7, Subunit A..................... X ............... 162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-7, Subunit B..................... X ............... 165 ac (67 ha).
RFS-8, Subunit A..................... X ............... 110 ac (45 ha).
RFS-8, Subunit B..................... X ............... 358 ac (145 ha).
RFS-8, Subunit C..................... X ............... 244 ac (99 ha).
RFS-9, Subunit A..................... X ............... 162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-9, Subunit B..................... X ............... 877 ac (355 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFS-10, Subunit A.................... X ............... 162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-10, Subunit B.................... X ............... 622 ac (252 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 2--Areas Determined To Meet the Definition of Critical Habitat for the Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander
but Were Exempted From Final Critical Habitat Designation
[Totals may not sum due to rounding]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area exempted from
Geographic area Definitional areas final designation Reason
acres (hectares) acres (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOLF Holley......................... 289 (117).............. 289 (117).............. INRMP.
--------------------------------------------------
Eglin Air Force Base................ 1,880 ac (761 ha)...... 1,880 ac (761 ha)...... INRMP.
--------------------------------------------------
Hurlburt Field...................... 712 ac (288 ha)........ 712 ac (288 ha)........ INRMP.
--------------------------------------------------
Total (Okaloosa and Santa Rosa 2,881 ac (1,166 ha).... 2,881 ac (1,166 ha)....
counties, Florida).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3 provides the approximate area encompassed within each
critical habitat unit determined to meet the definition of critical
habitat for the reticulated flatwoods salamander. Acre and hectare
values were individually computer-generated using GIS software, rounded
to nearest whole number, and then summed. Table 4 shows the occupied
units for the frosted flatwoods salamander.
Table 3--Critical Habitat Units for the Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander (RFS)
[Totals may not match due to rounding]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit Federal ac (ha) State ac (ha) Local ac (ha) Private ac (ha) Total ac (ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFS-1........................... .............................. 466 ac (186 ha)............... .............................. 221 ac (89 ha)................ 687 ac (275 ha).
RFS-2, Subunit A................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 162 ac (66 ha)................ 162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-2, Subunit B................ .............................. 162 ac (66 ha)................ .............................. .............................. 162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-3, Subunit A................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 148 ac (60 ha)................ 148 ac (60 ha).
RFS-3, Subunit B................ .............................. .............................. 25 ac (10 ha)................. 32 ac (13 ha)................. 57 ac (23 ha).
RFS-6, Subunit A................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 213 ac (86 ha)................ 213 ac (86 ha).
RFS-6, Subunit B................ .............................. 162 ac (66 ha)................ .............................. .............................. 162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-7, Subunit A................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 162 ac (66 ha)................ 162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-7, Subunit B................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 165 ac (67 ha)................ 165 ac (67 ha).
RFS-8, Subunit A................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 110 ac (45 ha)................ 110 ac (45 ha).
RFS-8, Subunit B................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 358 ac (145 ha)............... 358 ac (145 ha).
[[Page 6729]]
RFS-8, Subunit C................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 244 ac (99 ha)................ 244 ac (99 ha).
RFS-9, Subunit A................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 162 ac (66 ha)................ 162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-9, Subunit B................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 877 ac (355 ha)............... 877 ac (355 ha).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFS-10, Subunit A............... .............................. 162 ac (66 ha)................ .............................. .............................. 162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-10, Subunit B............... .............................. .............................. .............................. 622 ac (252 ha)............... 622 ac (252 ha).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 0 ac (0 ha)................... 952 ac (397 ha)............... 25 ac (10 ha)................. 3,476 ac (1,396 ha)........... 4,453 ac (1,803 ha).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4--Occupancy of Frosted Flatwoods Salamander (FFS) by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently
occupied (but
Unit Occupied at not occupied Size of unit in acres (hectares)
time of listing at time of
listing)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS-1, Subunit A..................... X ............... 2,285 ac (925 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit B..................... X ............... 733 ac (296 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit C..................... X ............... 972 ac (393 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit D..................... X ............... 568 ac (230 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit E..................... X ............... 3,679 ac (1,489 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit F..................... X ............... 162 ac (66 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit G..................... X ............... 5,373 ac (2,175 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit H..................... ............... X 887 ac (359 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit I..................... ............... X 162 ac (66 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit J..................... X ............... 593 ac (240 ha).
FFS-3, Subunit A..................... X ............... 3,078 ac (1,245 ha).
FFS-3, Subunit B..................... X ............... 1,804 ac (730 ha).
FFS-3, Subunit C..................... X ............... 163 ac (66 ha).
FFS-4, Subunit A..................... X ............... 550 ac (223 ha).
FFS-4, Subunit B..................... X ............... 162 ac (66 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS-5, Subunit A..................... X ............... 154 ac (63 ha).
FFS-5, Subunit B..................... X ............... 183 ac (74 ha).
FFS-6................................ X ............... 1,300 ac (526 ha).
FFS-7................................ X ............... 162 ac (66 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5--Areas Determined to Meet the Definition of Critical Habitat for the Frosted Flatwoods Salamander But
Were Exempted From Final Critical Habitat Designation
[Totals may not sum due to rounding]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Area exempted
Definitional from final
Geographic area areas acres designation Reason
(hectares) acres (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Stewart Military Installation......... 5,121 (2,072) 5,121 (2,072) INRMP.
Townsend Bombing Range..................... 162 (66) 162 (66) INRMP.
------------------------------------
Total (Georgia)........................ 5,283 (2,137) 5,283 (2,137)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 provides the approximate area encompassed within each
critical habitat unit determined to meet the definition of critical
habitat for the frosted flatwoods salamander. Acre and hectare values
were individually computer-generated using GIS software, rounded to
nearest whole number, and then summed.
[[Page 6730]]
Table 6--Critical Habitat Units for the Frosted Flatwoods Salamander (FFS)
[Totals may not match due to rounding]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subunit Federal ac (ha) State ac (ha) Local ac (ha) Private ac (ha) Total ac (ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS-1, Subunit A................ 1,976 ac (800 ha)............. .............................. .............................. 309 ac (125 ha)............... 2,285 ac (925 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit B................ 695 ac (281 ha)............... .............................. .............................. 38 ac (15 ha)................. 733 ac (296 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit C................ 972 ac (393 ha)............... .............................. .............................. .............................. 972 ac (393 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit D................ 568 ac (230 ha)............... .............................. .............................. .............................. 568 ac (230 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit E................ 3,473 ac (1,406 ha)........... .............................. .............................. 206 ac (83 ha)................ 3,679 ac (1,489 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit F................ 162 ac (66 ha)................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 162 ac (66 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit G................ 5,277 ac (2,136 ha)........... .............................. .............................. 96 ac (39 ha)................. 5,373 ac (2,175 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit H................ 861 ac (348 ha)............... 22 ac (9 ha).................. .............................. 4 ac (2 ha)................... 887 ac (359 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit I................ 162 ac (66 ha)................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 162 ac (66 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit J................ 593 ac (240 ha)............... .............................. .............................. .............................. 593 ac (240 ha).
FFS-3, Subunit A................ 1,456 ac (589 ha)............. .............................. .............................. 1,622 ac (656 ha)............. 3,078 ac (1,245 ha).
FFS-3, Subunit B................ 593 ac (240 ha)............... .............................. .............................. 1,211 ac (490 ha)............. 1,804 ac (730 ha).
FFS-3, Subunit C................ .............................. 85 ac (34 ha)................. .............................. 78 ac (32 ha)................. 163 ac (66 ha).
FFS-4, Subunit A................ 550 ac (223 ha)............... .............................. .............................. .............................. 550 ac (223 ha).
FFS-4, Subunit B................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 162 ac (66 ha)................ 162 ac (66 ha).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Carolina Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS-5, Subunit A................ .............................. .............................. .............................. 154 ac (62 ha)................ 154 ac (62 ha).
FFS-5 Subunit B................. .............................. .............................. .............................. 183 ac (74 ha)................ 183 ac (74 ha).
FFS-6........................... 1,176 ac (476 ha)............. .............................. .............................. 124 ac (50 ha)................ 1,300 ac (526 ha).
FFS-7........................... .............................. 162 ac (66 ha)................ .............................. 0.32 ac (0.13 ha)............. 162 ac (66 ha).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... 18,514 ac (7,494 ha).......... 269 ac (109 ha)............... 0 ac (0 ha)................... 4,187 ac (1,694 ha)........... 22,970 ac (9,297 ha).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the reticulated flatwoods
salamander and the frosted flatwoods salamander below. Unit
descriptions are presented separately by species. All threats apply
equally to all PCEs in each unit description.
Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander (RFS)
Unit RFS-1
Unit RFS-1 encompasses 687 ac (278 ha) in Santa Rosa County,
Florida. Within this unit, 466 ac (189 ha) consist of State land in the
Garcon Point Water Management Area managed by the Northwest Florida
Water Management District (NWFLWMD) and in the Yellow River Marsh State
Buffer Preserve (YRMSBP); 221 ac (89 ha) are in private ownership. Unit
RFS-1 is bisected by Hwy. 191 and occurs within an extensive wet
prairie. Since the majority of this unit, which was occupied at the
time of listing, is owned by NWFLWMD and YRMSBP, it is likely protected
from most agricultural and urban development. Threats to reticulated
flatwoods salamander habitat that may require special management of the
PCEs include potential fire suppression and potential hydrologic
changes resulting from the adjacent highway that could alter the
ecological functioning of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial
habitat. Ditches associated with highways can drain water from a site
and result in ponds with shorter hydroperiods and drier terrestrial
habitat. Alternatively, ditches can connect isolated wetlands with
permanent water sites that increase the hydroperiod of ponds and
facilitate the introduction of predaceous fish into breeding ponds. In
addition, run-off from highways can introduce toxic chemicals into
breeding sites. All lands designated as critical habitat contain all
PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander life
processes.
Unit RFS-2
Unit RFS-2 is comprised of two subunits encompassing 324 ac (131
ha) in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Within this unit, which was occupied
at the time of listing, there are 162 ac (66 ha) on State land managed
by NWFLWMD and Blackwater River State Forest (BRSF); and 162 ac (66 ha)
are in private ownership.
Subunit A
Unit RFS-2, Subunit A encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on private land in
Santa Rosa County, Florida. This subunit is located northeast of
Milton, Florida. Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and
its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include
agricultural and urban development, potential detrimental alterations
in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil
structure, potential hydrological alterations to the habitat, and the
potential for fire suppression. All lands designated as critical
habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods
salamander life processes.
Subunit B
Unit RFS-2, Subunit B encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) in Santa Rosa
County, Florida. Within this unit, there are 32 ac (13 ha) on State
land managed by NWFLWMD and 130 ac (53 ha) on State land managed by
BRSF. This subunit is located south of Interstate 10 and near the Santa
Rosa-Okaloosa County border. A small county road bisects the unit and a
power line crosses the eastern edge of the breeding pond. Threats to
the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require
special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire
suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices
that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential
hydrologic changes resulting from the road and power line that could
alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial
habitat. In addition, run-off from highways can introduce toxic
chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as critical habitat
contain all PCEs and support
[[Page 6731]]
multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander life processes.
Unit RFS-3
Unit RFS-3 is comprised of two subunits encompassing 205 ac (83 ha)
in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Within this unit, which was occupied at
the time of listing, 180 ac (73 ha) are on private land and 25 ac (10
ha) are on property owned by the Santa Rosa County School Board.
Subunit A
Unit RFS-3, Subunit A encompasses 148 ac (60 ha) on private land in
Santa Rosa County, Florida. This subunit is located near a rapidly
developing section of Federal Hwy. 98 between Navarre and Gulf Breeze,
Florida. Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the
potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soils structure,
potential hydrologic changes resulting from the highway that could
alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial
habitat, and potential habitat destruction due to urban and commercial
development nearby. All lands designated as critical habitat contain
all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander life
processes.
Subunit B
Unit RFS-3, Subunit B encompasses 57 ac (23 ha) in Santa Rosa
County, Florida. This subunit is located near a rapidly developing
section of U.S. Hwy. 98 between Navarre and Gulf Breeze, Florida.
Within this subunit, 32 ac (13 ha) are on private land and 25 ac (10
ha) are on property owned by the Santa Rosa County School Board.
Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander habitat that may
require special management of the existing PCEs include the potential
for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry
practices that could destroy the below-ground soils structure,
potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could
alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial
habitat, and future habitat destruction due to urban and commercial
development. All lands designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs
and support multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander life processes.
Unit RFS-6
Unit RFS-6 is composed of two subunits encompassing 375 ac (152 ha)
in Walton and Washington Counties, Florida. Within this unit (which was
occupied at the time of listing), 213 ac (86 ha) are on private land in
Walton County, Florida, and 162 ac (66 ha) are located on Pine Log
State Forest (managed by the State of Florida's Division of Forestry)
in Washington County, Florida.
Subunit A
Unit RFS-6, Subunit A encompasses 213 ac (86 ha) on private land in
Walton County, Florida. This subunit is bisected by State Hwy. 81 near
Bruce, Florida. Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the
potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure,
potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could
alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial
habitat, and future habitat destruction due to urban and commercial
development. In addition, run-off from highways can introduce toxic
chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as critical habitat
contain all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander
life processes.
Subunit B
Unit RFS-6, Subunit B encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on Pine Log State
Forest (managed by the State of Florida's Division of Forestry) in
Washington County, Florida. Since the lands located within this subunit
are owned by the State of Florida, they are likely protected from
direct agricultural and urban development; however, threats remain to
the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require
special management of the PCEs. They include the potential for fire
suppression and potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices
that could destroy the below-ground soil structure. All lands
designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple
reticulated flatwoods salamander life processes.
Unit RFS-7
Unit RFS-7, which was occupied at the time of listing, is comprised
of two subunits encompassing 327 ac (132 ha) on private land in Holmes
and Washington Counties, Florida.
Subunit A
Unit RFS-7, Subunit A encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on private land in
Holmes County, Florida. This subunit is located approximately 2 mi (3.2
km) east of State Hwy. 79 and approximately 5.5 mi (8.8 km) north of
Bonifay, Florida. Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and
its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the
potential for fire suppression, potential expansion of agriculture into
the unit, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that
could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic
changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of
the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands
designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple
reticulated flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit B
Unit RFS-7, Subunit B encompasses 165 ac (67 ha) on private land in
Washington County, Florida. This subunit is located less than a mile
(1.6 km) northwest of State Hwy. 79 and approximately 4 mi (6.4 km)
west of Vernon, Florida. Threats to the reticulated flatwoods
salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the
PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential expansion of
agriculture into the unit, potential detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure,
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that
could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat. All lands designated as critical habitat contain
all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander life
processes.
Unit RFS-8
Unit RFS-8, which was occupied at the time of listing, is composed
of three subunits encompassing 712 ac (288 ha) on private land in
Jackson County, Florida.
Subunit A
Unit RFS-8, Subunit A encompasses 110 ac (45 ha) on private land in
western Jackson County, Florida near the Jackson-Washington County
line. This subunit is located just south of U.S. Hwy. 90 and west of
State Hwy. 231 approximately 10 mi (16 km) west of Marianna, Florida.
Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its habitat that
may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for
fire suppression, potential expansion of agriculture and residential
development into the unit, potential detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure,
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that
could alter the
[[Page 6732]]
ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. In
addition, run-off from highways can introduce toxic chemicals into
breeding sites. All lands designated as critical habitat contain all
PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander life
processes.
Subunit B
Unit RFS-8, Subunit B encompasses 358 ac (145 ha) on private land
in Jackson County, Florida. This subunit is located just east of State
Hwy. 71 and south of U.S. Hwy. 90, between Old Spanish Trail and the
CSX railroad. This locality is approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) southeast of
Marianna, Florida. Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and
its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the
potential for fire suppression, potential expansion of agriculture and
residential development into the unit, potential detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from
adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and
surrounding terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off from highways can
introduce toxic chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as
critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple reticulated
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit C
Unit RFS-8, Subunit C encompasses 244 ac (99 ha) on private land in
Jackson County, Florida. This currently occupied subunit is bisected by
State Hwy. 275 south of Interstate 10 near Wolf Slough. Threats to the
reticulated flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require
special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire
suppression, potential expansion of agriculture and residential
development into the unit, potential detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure,
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that
could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off from highways can introduce
toxic chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as critical
habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods
salamander life processes.
Unit RFS-9
Unit RFS-9, which was occupied at the time of listing, is comprised
of two subunits encompassing 1,039 ac (421 ha) on private land in
Calhoun County, Florida.
Subunit A
Unit RFS-9, Subunit A encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on private land in
Calhoun County, Florida. This subunit is bisected by an unnamed road
near Broad Branch, is approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) west of State Hwy.
73, and is approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) west of Kinard, Florida. Threats
to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may
require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire
suppression, potential expansion of agriculture and residential
development into the unit, potential detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure,
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that
could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off from highways can introduce
toxic chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as critical
habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods
salamander life processes.
Subunit B
Unit RFS-9, Subunit B encompasses 877 ac (355 ha) on private land
in Calhoun County, Florida. This subunit is bisected by an unnamed road
running east of and parallel to State Hwy. 71, and is located
approximately 13 mi (20.8 km) south of Scotts Ferry, Florida. Threats
to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may
require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire
suppression, potential expansion of agriculture and residential
development into the unit, potential detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure,
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that
could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off from highways can introduce
toxic chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as critical
habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods
salamander life processes.
Unit RFS-10
Unit RFS-10, which was occupied at the time of listing, is
comprised of two subunits encompassing 784 ac (317 ha) in Baker and
Miller counties, Georgia. Within RFS-10, 162 ac (66 ha) are located on
Mayhaw Wildlife Management Area (managed by the State of Georgia) in
Miller County, Georgia, and 622 ac (252 ha) are located on private land
adjacent to, and running south of, State Highway 200 in southwestern
Baker County, Georgia.
Subunit A
Unit RFS-10, Subunit A encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on Mayhaw
Wildlife Management Area (managed by the State of Georgia) in Miller
County, Georgia. Since this subunit is owned by the State of Georgia,
it is likely protected from most agricultural and urban development
(Ozier 2008). Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the
potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure,
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and
roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat. All lands designated as critical habitat contain
all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander life
processes.
Subunit B
Unit RFS-10, Subunit B encompasses 622 ac (252 ha) on private land
adjacent to, and south of, State Highway 200 in southwestern Baker
County, Georgia. Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and
its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the
potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure,
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and
roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off from highways can introduce
toxic chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as critical
habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods
salamander life processes.
Frosted Flatwoods Salamander (FFS)
Unit FFS-1
Unit FFS-1 is comprised of 10 subunits in Liberty and Franklin
Counties, Florida. These subunits are comprised primarily of U.S.
Forest Service land lying within the Apalachicola National Forest. The
combined acreage of these subunits is 15,414 ac (6,238 ha). Of these
acres, 14,614 ac (5,914 ha) are on the Apalachicola National Forest, 22
ac (9 ha) are under State management, and 778 ac (315 ha) are in
private
[[Page 6733]]
ownership. Subunits A through G and subunit J (14,365 ac (5,813 ha))
were occupied at the time of listing and are currently occupied;
subunits H and I (1,049 ac (425 ha)) were not occupied at the time of
listing, but are currently occupied.
Subunit A
Unit FFS-1, Subunit A encompasses 2,285 ac (925 ha) in Liberty
County, Florida. Within this subunit, 1,976 ac (800 ha) are in the
Apalachicola National Forest and 309 ac (125 ha) are in private
ownership. Lands within this subunit owned by the U.S. Forest Service
are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development;
however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods salamander and its
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. This subunit
requires special management to address threats including the potential
for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry
practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and
potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads
that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat. All lands designated as critical habitat contain
all PCEs and support multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life
processes.
Subunit B
Unit FFS-1, Subunit B encompasses 733 ac (296 ha) in Liberty
County, Florida. Within this subunit, 695 ac (281 ha) are in the
Apalachicola National Forest and 38 ac (15 ha) are in private
ownership. Lands within this subunit owned by the U.S. Forest Service
are protected from direct agricultural and urban development (Griep
2008); however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods salamander and
its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. This
subunit requires special management to address threats including the
potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure,
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and
roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat. All lands designated as critical habitat contain
all PCEs and support multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life
processes.
Subunit C
Unit FFS-1, Subunit C encompasses 972 ac (393 ha) in Liberty
County, Florida. All of this subunit is within the Apalachicola
National Forest. Lands within this subunit are owned by the U.S. Forest
Service and are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban
development; however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods
salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the
PCEs. This subunit requires special management to address threats
including the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands designated
as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit D
Unit FFS-1, Subunit D encompasses 568 ac (230 ha) in Liberty
County, Florida. All of this subunit is within the Apalachicola
National Forest. Lands within this subunit are owned by the U.S. Forest
Service and are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban
development; however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods
salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the
PCEs. This subunit requires special management to address threats
including the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands designated
as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit E
Unit FFS-1, Subunit E encompasses 3,679 ac (1,489 ha) in Liberty
County, Florida. Within this subunit, 3,473 ac (1,406 ha) are in the
Apalachicola National Forest and 206 ac (83 ha) are in private
ownership. Lands within this subunit owned by the U.S. Forest Service
are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development;
however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods salamander and its
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. This subunit
requires special management to address threats including the potential
for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry
practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, potential
hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that
could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat, as well as agricultural and urban development. All
lands designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support
multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit F
Unit FFS-1, Subunit F encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) in Liberty County,
Florida. All of this subunit is within the Apalachicola National
Forest. Lands within this subunit are owned by the U.S. Forest Service
and are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban
development; however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods
salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the
PCEs. This subunit requires special management to address threats
including the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands designated
as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit G
Unit FFS-1, Subunit G encompasses 5,373 ac (2,175 ha) in Liberty
County, Florida. Within this subunit, 5,277 ac (2,136 ha) are in the
Apalachicola National Forest and 96 ac (39 ha) are in private
ownership. Lands within this subunit owned by the U.S. Forest Service
are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development;
however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods salamander and its
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. This subunit
requires special management to address threats including the potential
for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry
practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, potential
hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that
could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat, as well as agricultural and urban development. All
lands designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support
multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit H
Unit FFS-1, Subunit H encompasses 887 ac (359 ha) in Liberty
County, Florida. Within this subunit, 861 ac (348
[[Page 6734]]
ha) are in the Apalachicola National Forest, 22 ac (9 ha) are under
State management, and 4 ac (2 ha) are in private ownership. This
subunit was not occupied at the time of listing, but is currently
occupied. The currently occupied habitat of the flatwoods salamander is
highly localized and fragmented. Flatwoods salamanders are particularly
susceptible to drought, as breeding cannot occur if breeding ponds do
not receive adequate rainfall. These small populations are at a high
risk of extinction due to random events such as drought, and human-
induced threats such as urban-agricultural development and habitat
degradation due to fire suppression and hydrological alterations. Thus,
to ensure the persistence and conservation of this species throughout
its current geographic and ecological distribution despite fluctuations
in the status of subpopulations, we have determined that this subunit,
although not occupied at the time of listing, is essential for the
conservation of the species. Lands within this subunit owned by the
U.S. Forest Service are likely protected from direct agricultural and
urban development. All lands designated as critical habitat contain all
PCEs and support multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit I
Unit FFS-1, Subunit I encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) within the
Apalachicola National Forest in Liberty County, Florida. This subunit
was not occupied at the time of listing, but is currently occupied. The
currently occupied habitat of the flatwoods salamander is highly
localized and fragmented. Flatwoods salamanders are particularly
susceptible to drought, as breeding cannot occur if breeding ponds do
not receive adequate rainfall. These small populations are at a high
risk of extinction due to random events such as drought, and human-
induced threats such as urban-agricultural development and habitat
degradation due to fire suppression and hydrological alterations. Thus,
to ensure the persistence and conservation of this species throughout
its current geographic and ecological distribution despite fluctuations
in the status of subpopulations, we have determined that this subunit
is essential for the conservation of the species. Lands within this
subunit are owned by the U.S. Forest Service and are likely protected
from direct agricultural and urban development. All lands designated as
critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit J
Unit FFS-1, Subunit J encompasses 593 ac (240 ha) in Franklin
County, Florida. All of this subunit is within the Apalachicola
National Forest. Lands within this subunit are owned by the U.S. Forest
Service and are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban
development; however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods
salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the
PCEs. This subunit requires special management to address threats
including the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands designated
as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Unit FFS-3
Unit FFS-3, which was occupied at the time of listing, is comprised
of three subunits encompassing 5,045 ac (2,042 ha) in Jefferson and
Wakulla Counties, Florida. Within this unit, 2,049 ac (829 ha) are on
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (managed by the Service), 85
ac (34 ha) are in the Aucilla Wildlife Management Area managed by the
State of Florida, and 2,911 ac (1,178 ha) are in private ownership.
Subunit A
Unit FFS-3, Subunit A encompasses 3,078 ac (1,245 ha) on Federal
and private land in Wakulla County, Florida. This subunit is located
south of U.S. Hwy. 98 and southeast of the town of Newport, Florida.
Within this subunit, 1,456 ac (589 ha) are in the St. Marks NWR and
1,622 ac (656 ha) are in private ownership. Portions of this subunit
that are within Federal ownership are likely protected from direct
agricultural and urban development; however, threats remain to the
frosted flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special
management of the PCEs. This subunit requires special management to
address threats including the potential for fire suppression, potential
detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the
below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting
from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off
from highways can introduce toxic chemicals into breeding sites.
Special management is needed to address the threats of agricultural and
urban development on portions of the unit within private ownership. All
lands designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support
multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit B
Unit FFS-3, Subunit B encompasses 1,804 ac (730 ha) on Federal and
private land. This subunit is located south of U.S. Hwy. 98 in
southeastern Wakulla and southwestern Jefferson counties. Within this
subunit, 593 ac (240 ha) are in the St. Marks NWR and 1,211 ac (490 ha)
are in private ownership. Portions of this subunit that are within
Federal ownership are likely protected from direct agricultural and
urban development; however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods
salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the
PCEs. This subunit requires special management to address threats
including the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off
from highways can introduce toxic chemicals into breeding sites.
Special management is needed to address the threats of agricultural and
urban development on portions of the unit within private ownership. All
lands designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support
multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit C
Unit FFS-3, Subunit C encompasses 163 ac (66 ha) in Jefferson
County, Florida. Within this subunit, 85 ac (34 ha) are in the Aucilla
Wildlife Management Area managed by the State of Florida and 78 ac (32
ha) are in private ownership. This subunit is bisected by State Hwy.
59, 5.3 mi (8.4 km) north of U.S. Hwy. 98, and approximately 2 mi (3.2
km) east of the Jefferson-Wakulla County line. Portions of this subunit
that are within State ownership are likely protected from direct
agricultural and urban development; however, threats remain to the
frosted flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special
management of the PCEs. This subunit requires special management to
address threats including the potential for fire suppression, potential
detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the
below-ground soil
[[Page 6735]]
structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent
highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond
and surrounding terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off from highways
can introduce toxic chemicals into breeding sites. Special management
is needed to address the threats of agricultural and urban development
on portions of the unit within private ownership. All lands designated
as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Unit FFS-4
Unit FFS-4 is comprised of two subunits encompassing 712 ac (288
ha) in Baker County, Florida. Within this unit, which was occupied at
the time of listing, 550 ac (223 ha) are on Osceola NF and 162 ac (66
ha) are in private ownership.
Subunit A
Unit FFS-4, Subunit A encompasses 550 ac (223 ha) on the Osceola
National Forest in Baker County, Florida. This subunit is located
adjacent and south of Interstate 10 in the southwestern corner of Baker
County between State Highways 250 and 229. Portions of this subunit
within Federal ownership are likely protected from direct agricultural
and urban development; however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods
salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the
PCEs. This subunit requires special management to address threats
including the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off
from highways can introduce toxic chemicals into breeding sites. All
lands designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support
multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit B
Unit FFS-4, Subunit B encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on private land in
Baker County, Florida. This subunit occurs approximately 2 mi (3.2 km)
south of State Hwy. 229 and 3.5 mi (5.6 km) north of Interstate 10.
This subunit requires special management to address threats including
the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations
in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil
structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent
highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond
and surrounding terrestrial habitat, as well as agricultural and urban
development. In addition, run-off from highways can introduce toxic
chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as critical habitat
contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life
processes.
Unit FFS-5
Unit FFS-5 is comprised of two subunits encompassing 337 ac (136
ha) on privately owned land in Jasper County, South Carolina. Both
subunits were occupied at the time of listing and are currently
occupied.
Subunit A
Unit FFS-5, Subunit A encompasses 154 ac (62 ha) on private land in
Jasper County, South Carolina. This subunit is bisected by State Hwy.
46 and occurs near a rapidly developing area of Jasper County. Within
this subunit, threats to the frosted flatwoods salamander and its
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the
potential for fire suppression, potential expansion of agriculture and
residential development into the unit, potential detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground
soils structure, potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent
roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat, and future habitat destruction due to urban and
commercial development. In addition, run-off from highways can
introduce toxic chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as
critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit B
Unit FFS-5, Subunit B encompasses 183 ac (74 ha) on private land in
Jasper County, South Carolina. This subunit is bisected by a county
road, approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) west of U.S. Hwy. 321, northwest of
Hardeeville, South Carolina. Within this subunit, threats to the
frosted flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special
management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression,
potential expansion of agriculture and residential development into the
unit, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that
could destroy the below-ground soils structure, potential hydrologic
changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of
the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat, and future
habitat destruction due to urban and commercial development. In
addition, run-off from highways can introduce toxic chemicals into
breeding sites. All lands designated as critical habitat contain all
PCEs and support multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life processes.
Unit FFS-6
Unit FFS-6, occupied at the time of listing, encompasses 1,300 ac
(526 ha) on Federal and private land in Berkeley County, South
Carolina. This unit is bisected by State Highway 41 approximately 10 mi
(16 km) south of the town of Huger. Within this unit, 1,176 ac (476 ha)
are in the Francis Marion National Forest and 124 ac (50 ha) are on
private land. Land within this subunit owned by the U.S. Forest Service
is protected from agricultural and urban development; however, threats
remain to frosted flatwoods salamander habitat that may require special
management of the PCEs. These threats include the potential for fire
suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices
that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential
hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that
could alter the ecological functioning of the breeding pond and
surrounding terrestrial habitat. Special management of the PCEs may
also be required for the threats posed by agricultural and urban
development on the lands in private ownership. All lands designated as
critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Unit FFS-7
Unit FFS-7 encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on the Santee Coastal Reserve
(managed by the State of South Carolina) in Charleston County, South
Carolina. Approximately 0.32 ac (0.13 ha) on private land are also
included within this unit. Since most of this unit, which was occupied
at the time of listing, is owned by the State of South Carolina, it is
likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development;
however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods salamander and its
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. Threats
include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and
[[Page 6736]]
surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands designated as critical
habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted flatwoods
salamander life processes.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that
actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely
modify designated critical habitat. Decisions by the 5th and 9th
Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated our definition of
``destruction or adverse modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford
Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059
(9th Cir 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et
al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)), and we do not rely on this
regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the statutory
provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse modification
on the basis of whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal
action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional (or
retain the current ability for the PCEs to be functionally established)
to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, if a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency
(action agency) must enter into consultation with us. As a result of
this consultation, we document compliance with the requirements of
section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that are likely to
adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable. We define ``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the
intended purpose of the action,
Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
Are economically and technologically feasible, and
Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely
modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect the frosted flatwoods or
reticulated flatwoods salamanders or their designated critical habitat
will require section 7(a)(2) consultation under the Act. Activities on
State, tribal, local, or private lands requiring a Federal permit (such
as a permit from the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from us under section 10(a)(1)(B) of
the Act) or involving some other Federal action (such as funding from
the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or
the Federal Emergency Management Agency) are examples of agency actions
that may be subject to the section 7(a)(2) consultation process.
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and
actions on State, Tribal, local or private lands that are not federally
funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require section 7(a)(2)
consultations.
Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard
The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species, or would retain its current ability
for the primary constituent elements to be functionally established.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical and biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for the
reticulated flatwoods salamander and the frosted flatwoods salamander.
Generally, the conservation role of reticulated flatwoods salamander
and frosted flatwoods salamander critical habitat units is to support
viable core areas for the species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any final regulation that designates critical habitat,
activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely
modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation.
Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore should result
in consultation for the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the
frosted flatwoods salamander include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry in
reticulated flatwoods salamander or frosted flatwoods salamander
breeding ponds. Such activities could include, but are not limited to,
the release of chemicals, biological pollutants, or sedimentation into
the surface water or connected groundwater at a point source or by
dispersed release (non-point source) via road construction, urban and
agricultural development, ditching, timber harvest, off-road vehicle
use, and other watershed disturbances. These activities could alter the
condition of the water beyond the tolerances of the reticulated
flatwoods salamander and frosted flatwoods salamander and their
respective food bases, resulting in direct or cumulative adverse
effects to individuals and their life cycles.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter the hydroperiod and
vegetation of a reticulated flatwoods salamander or a frosted flatwoods
salamander breeding pond. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, road construction; urban and agricultural development;
dredging, ditching, or filling ponds; fire suppression; and timber
harvesting and replanting. These activities could alter the hydrologic
timing, duration, or water flows of a pond basin, as well as alter the
constituent vegetation. They could also increase the connectivity of
breeding ponds to more permanent waters, which would allow the invasion
of predatory fish. As a result, the habitat necessary for reticulated
flatwoods salamander or frosted flatwoods
[[Page 6737]]
salamander reproduction and the growth and development of eggs and
juvenile salamanders would be reduced or eliminated.
(3) Actions that would significantly alter the terrestrial forested
habitat of the reticulated flatwoods salamander or the frosted
flatwoods salamander. Such activities could include, but are not
limited to, road construction, urban and agricultural development,
dredging, ditching, fire suppression, and timber harvesting and
replanting. These activities may lead to changes in soil moisture, soil
below-ground structure, soil temperatures, and vegetation that would
degrade or eliminate the terrestrial habitat of the reticulated
flatwoods salamander or frosted flatwoods salamander.
Please see ``Special Management Considerations or Protection''
section for a more detailed discussion on the impacts of these actions
to the listed species.
Exemptions and Exclusions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resource management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
A statement of goals and priorities;
A detailed description of management actions to be
implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and
A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for
designation.''
We consult with the military on the development and implementation
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. The Service reviewed
each of the INRMPs described below prior to their finalization and has
provided input into strategies for monitoring and management of
endangered species including the reticulated flatwoods salamander and
frosted flatwoods salamander. Each military facility has been
conducting surveys and habitat management to benefit the reticulated
flatwoods salamander or the frosted flatwoods salamander and reporting
the results of their efforts to the Service. Cooperation between the
military facilities and the Service on specific conservation measures
continues. INRMPs developed by military installations located within
the range of the critical habitat designation for the reticulated
flatwoods salamander and the frosted flatwoods salamander were analyzed
for exemption under the authority of 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Approved INRMPs
Navy Outlying Landing Field Holley (NOLF Holley)
NOLF Holley is located in Santa Rosa County, Florida, and has
approximately 289 ac (117 ha) of habitat with features essential to the
conservation of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. In 2006, the U.S.
Department of the Navy (DoN) drafted a revision of its 2001 INRMP for
Naval Air Station Whiting Field Complex, of which NOLF Holley is a part
(DoN 2006, pp. 5-68, 5-70, 5-73, 5-76, 5-77, 6-22, 6-23, A-16). The
revised INRMP outlines management for 5 years (2007-2011). We have
examined this document and determined that it does provide conservation
measures for the reticulated flatwoods salamander, as well as for the
management of important wetland and upland habitats at NOLF Holley. The
area of NOLF Holley where reticulated flatwoods salamander habitat is
located has been designated as a Protected Area. The INRMP outlines a
Special Management Initiative for the reticulated flatwoods salamander,
which includes a prescribed burning program, strategies to identify
salamander distribution and habitat, control of invasive species,
enforcement of restrictions on off-road vehicle use, and forest
management consistent with recommendations in the final listing rule
(64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999). Although we had received information in
2007 that the Navy was considering selling NOLF Holley and as a result
were concerned about implementation of the INRMP, the Navy has assured
us that it has no plans to transfer ownership of the site and it
intends to continue stewardship of the salamander and its habitat (DoN
2008, p. 2).
Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the
direction provided in section 4(a)(3)B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP will
provide benefits to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the
features essential to the species' conservation occurring on NOLF
Holley. In our analyses, we have taken into consideration that the
INRMP does not protect the habitat from future destruction or
modification associated with development, however, we know of no such
potential threat at this time. Therefore, this installation is exempt
from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We
are not including approximately 289 ac (117 ha) of habitat in the final
critical habitat designation for the reticulated flatwoods salamander
because of this exemption.
Hurlburt Field
Hurlburt Field is located in Okaloosa County, Florida, and has
approximately 712 ac (288 ha) of habitat with features essential to the
conservation of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. The U.S.
Department of Defense-Air Force finalized a revision to the INRMP for
Hurlburt Field in 2008 (DoD 2008, pp. 1-152). The INRMP will continue
to be reviewed annually to monitor the effectiveness of the plan, and
be reviewed every five years to develop revisions and updates as
necessary. We have examined this document and determined that it does
outline conservation measures for the reticulated flatwoods salamander,
as well as management plans for important wetland and upland habitats
at Hurlburt Field. The INRMP outlines goals and objectives for the
reticulated flatwoods salamander and its habitat that include a
prescribed burning program, strategies to identify and monitor
salamander distribution and habitat, control of invasive species, and
forest management consistent with recommendations in the final listing
rule (DoD 2008, pp. 61, 79, 133-151).
Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the
direction
[[Page 6738]]
provided in section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that
conservation efforts identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to
the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the features essential to the
species' conservation occurring in habitats within Hurlburt Field.
Therefore, this installation is exempt from critical habitat
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including
approximately 712 ac (288 ha) of habitat in this final designation of
critical habitat because of this exemption.
Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin)
Eglin is located in Okaloosa and Santa Rosa counties, Florida, and
has approximately 1,880 ac (761 ha) of habitat with features essential
to the conservation of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. The
Department of Defense completed the update of its INRMP for Eglin in
2007 (DoD 2007, pp. 124-126, 181). This INRMP covers a period of 5
years from 2007 through 2011. A separate threatened and endangered
species component plan has been written and contains specific
monitoring and management actions for the reticulated flatwoods
salamander (DoD 2006a, pp. 53-64, 240-242). The INRMP and component
plan outline a management direction for the reticulated flatwoods
salamander that includes a prescribed burning program, strategies to
identify and monitor salamander distribution and habitat, control of
invasive species, and forest management consistent with recommendations
in the final listing rule (64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999). In 2007, it
came to our attention (Arnold 2007) that a road had been proposed which
could cross Eglin within the habitat with features essential to the
conservation of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. However, during
the open comment period Eglin assured us that it will not allow
negative impacts to the salamander's habitat and that it will continue
to ensure the conservation of the reticulated flatwoods salamander.
Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the
direction provided in section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that the INRMP will provide a benefit to the reticulated
flatwoods salamander and the features essential to the species'
conservation occurring on Eglin. Therefore, approximately 1,880 ac (761
ha) of habitat on Eglin with features essential to the conservation of
the reticulated flatwoods salamander are exempt from this final
critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Fort Stewart Military Installation (Fort Stewart)
Fort Stewart, U.S. Army installation, is located in Bryan, Evans,
Liberty, Long, and Tattnall Counties, Georgia and has approximately
5,121 ac (2,072 ha) of habitat with features essential to the
conservation of the frosted flatwoods salamander. The first INRMP
(INRMP I) for Fort Stewart was completed in 2001 and updated in 2005
(DoD 2005, pp. 1, 22, 34, 76-77). Each INRMP covers a period of 5 years
with a subsequent review and update every 5 years. Additionally, an
annual review of management implementation is conducted and, if
necessary, the INRMP is adapted to address needed improvements. The
management direction from INRMP I is being continued in the review. We
have examined this document and determined that it does provide
conservation measures for the frosted flatwoods salamander, as well as
for the management of important wetland and upland habitats at Fort
Stewart. The INRMP outlines management activities to be conducted for
the frosted flatwoods salamander (DoD 2005, p. 22). These include a
prescribed burning program, strategies to identify and monitor frosted
flatwoods salamander distribution and habitat, control of invasive
species, and forest management consistent with recommendations in the
final listing rule (64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999). At this time, we know
of no proposed projects outside the scope of the INRMP which would
threaten the frosted flatwoods salamander or its habitat.
Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the
direction provided in section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that conservation identified in the INRMP will provide
benefits to the frosted flatwoods salamander and the features essential
to the species' conservation occurring on Fort Stewart Military
Installation. In our analyses, we have taken into consideration that
the INRMP does not protect the habitat from future destruction or
modification associated with development, however, we know of no such
potential threat at this time. Therefore, approximately 5,121 ac (2,072
ha) of habitat with features essential to the conservation of the
frosted flatwoods salamander within Fort Stewart Military Installation
are exempt from this final designation of critical habitat for the
frosted flatwoods salamander under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Townsend Bombing Range (Townsend)
Townsend is located in McIntosh County, Georgia, and contains
approximately 162 ac (66 ha) of habitat with features essential to the
conservation of the frosted flatwoods salamander. The property is owned
by the U.S. Department of the Navy and the land is managed by Marine
Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina (MCAS Beaufort). The
original INRMP written in 2001 for Townsend has been renewed to cover
the period November 2006 through October 2011 (DoD 2006b, pp. ES-1, ES-
2, 1-3, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 3-15, 4-4, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-19, 4-20, 4-
22, 4-23, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29). We have examined this document and
determined that it does provide conservation measures for the frosted
flatwoods salamander, as well as for the management of important
wetland and upland habitats at Townsend. The INRMP includes activities
to maintain or increase the salamander's population on Townsend through
improvement of terrestrial habitat through use of prescribed fire and
improvement of water quality and hydrologic regime of the breeding
ponds. The INRMP provides biological goals and objectives, measures of
success, provisions for annual monitoring and adaptive management, and
provisions for reporting. The INRMP outlines projects that would
benefit the frosted flatwoods salamander including a prescribed burning
program, strategies to identify and monitor salamander distribution and
habitat, control of invasive species, and forest management consistent
with recommendations in the final listing rule (64 FR 15691; April 1,
1999).
Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that conservation efforts
identified in the INRMP will provide benefits to the frosted flatwoods
salamander and the features essential to the species' conservation
occurring in habitats within or adjacent to the Townsend Bombing Range.
In our analyses, we have taken into consideration that the INRMP does
not protect the habitat from future destruction or modification
associated with development, however, we know of no such potential
threat at this time. Therefore, approximately 162 ac (66 ha) of habitat
with features essential to the conservation of the frosted flatwoods
salamander on Townsend are exempt from final critical habitat
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
[[Page 6739]]
Application of Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate
and revise critical habitat on the basis of the best available
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact,
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying
any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an
area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that
determination, the statute as well as the legislative history are clear
that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to
use and how much weight to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in considering whether to exclude
a particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits
of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of
excluding the area from the designation, and determine whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If based on
this analysis we determine that the benefits of exclusion would
outweigh the benefits of inclusion of an area, then we can exclude the
area only if such exclusions would not result in the extinction of the
species.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must consider all relevant
impacts, including economic impacts. We consider a number of factors in
a section 4(b)(2) analysis. For example, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist. We also consider whether landowners having
proposed critical habitat on their lands have developed any
conservation plans for the area, or whether there are conservation
partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion
from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at any Tribal issues, and
consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States
with Tribal entities. We also consider any social or other impacts that
might occur because of the designation.
In the proposed rule, we requested comments regarding information
supporting or opposing possible exclusion of units within National
Forests from critical habitat in the final designation. In this
instance, we have examined all comments submitted and evaluated the
Forest Management Plans for Francis Marion, Osceola, and Apalachicola
National Forests with respect to providing adequate protection and
management for the flatwoods salamander. None of these Plans provide
sufficient protection and management to satisfy the criteria necessary
for exclusion from final critical habitat.
On the other hand, we have determined that the lands designated as
critical habitat for the frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders
are not currently included in habitat conservation plans (HCPs) for
these species and that the designation does not include any Tribal
lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact to national security,
Tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this critical habitat
designation.
Economic Analysis (EA)
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular
area as critical habitat. In compliance with section 4(b)(2) of the
Act, we have prepared an EA of this final designation of critical
habitat for the frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders.
The final EA (Industrial Economics 2008b) considers the potential
economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of the frosted
and reticulated flatwoods salamanders, including costs associated with
sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to
designating critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects
of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and
local laws that aid habitat conservation for the frosted and
reticulated flatwoods salamanders in essential habitat areas. The EA
considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the
case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the
``opportunity costs'' associated with the commitment of resources to
comply with habitat protection measures (for example, lost economic
opportunities associated with restrictions on land use).
The EA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. This
information can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the
effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or
economic sector. Finally, the EA considers those costs that may occur
in the 20 years following a designation of critical habitat.
Pre-critical-habitat designation (or pre-designation) (1999-2008)
costs associated with species conservation activities are estimated at
$2.08 million discounted at 7 percent (Industrial Economics 2008b, p.
B-4). Potential post-critical-habitat designation (or post-designation)
(2009-2028) costs are estimated to range between $3.88 and $6.40
million at a 3 percent discount rate and between $2.49 and $4.38
million at a 7 percent discount rate (Industrial Economics 2008b, p. B-
5). In annualized terms, potential post-designation costs are expected
to range from $261,000 to $430,000 annualized at 3 percent and $235,000
to $413,000 annualized at 7 percent (Industrial Economics 2008b, p. B-
5).
Because our EA did not identify any disproportionate costs that are
likely to result from the designation, we did not consider excluding
any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the frosted or
reticulated flatwoods salamanders based on economic impacts.
A copy of the final EA with supporting documents is included in our
administrative record and may be obtained by contacting U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT) or by downloading from the Internet at
www.regulations.gov/.
Therefore, there are no areas excluded from this final critical
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2).
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB
bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
(a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
[[Page 6740]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency must publish a notice of
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses,
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended RFA to require
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for
certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities. In this final rule, we are
certifying that the critical habitat designation for the frosted and
reticulated flatwoods salamanders will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following
discussion explains our rationale.
According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we consider the types
of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general,
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm's business operations.
To determine if the final designation of critical habitat for the
frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders could significantly
affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number
of small entities affected within particular types of economic
activities (for example, housing development, grazing, oil and gas
production, timber harvesting). We considered each industry or category
individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so
will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal
activities are not affected by the designation. Typically, when final
critical habitat designations are made final, Federal agencies must
consult with us if their activities may affect that designated critical
habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing
consultation process.
The EA for the frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders
evaluated the potential for economic impacts related to several
categories, including (1) timber management; (2) development; (3) other
activities, including road construction, species management, fire
management and recreation (Industrial Economics 2008b, p. A-2). Based
on our analysis, only small business entities that rely on land
development are expected to be affected by conservation efforts for the
frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders. Therefore, the screening
analysis focused on incremental impacts to development activities. Six
small businesses may be affected with an average high-end potential per
business impact of $46,100 (Industrial Economics 2008b, p. A-6) for
both species. Potential high-end incremental impacts per landowner
range from $6,770 in FFS-1 to $102,000 in RFS-3. Potentially affected
developable acres in the final critical habitat designation are small
relative to the total number of developable acres in these counties.
Regional businesses that support or are supported by development (such
as construction companies, hardware suppliers, or lumberyards) in these
counties are not expected to be measurably affected by salamander
conservation (Industrial Economics 2008b, p. A-6). In addition,
``downstream'' impacts are not measurable due to the small proportion
of all developable lands that are projected to be impacted by
salamander conservation measures (as measured at the county level)
(Industrial Economics 2008b, p. A-3).
In summary, we have considered whether this final designation of
critical habitat would result in a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities. We have determined, for the above
reasons and based on currently available information, that it is not
likely to affect a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we
certify that this final regulation will not result in a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities.
Please refer to our EA of this designation for a more detailed
discussion of potential economic impacts.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State,
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance''
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants;
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services;
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate''
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty
[[Page 6741]]
on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act,
the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that
their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under
section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding,
assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program,
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above
onto State governments.
(b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because it is not likely to produce a Federal
mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act. Most lands being designated as critical habitat are Federal or
State properties. In addition, the designation of critical habitat
imposes no obligations on State or local governments. Therefore, a
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.
Takings
In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the frosted
flatwoods salamander in a takings implications assessment. The takings
implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical
habitat for the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the frosted
flatwoods salamander does not pose significant takings implications for
lands within or affected by the designation.
Federalism
In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this final rule does
not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated
development of, this final critical habitat designation with
appropriate State resource agencies in Florida, Georgia, and South
Carolina. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently
occupied by the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the frosted
flatwoods salamander imposes no additional restrictions to those
currently in place and, therefore, has little incremental impact on
State and local governments and their activities. The designation may
have some benefit to these governments because the areas that contain
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of
the species are more clearly defined, and the PCEs necessary to support
the life processes of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist local governments in long-
range planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Civil Justice Reform
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order. We have designated critical habitat in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. This final rule uses standard property
descriptions and identifies physical and biological features essential
to the conservation of the species within the designated areas to
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the reticulated
flatwoods salamander and the frosted flatwoods salamander.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was
upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied
516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. We have determined that there are no
tribal lands occupied at the time of listing that contain the features
essential for the conservation, and no tribal lands that are essential
for the conservation, of the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the
frosted flatwoods salamander. Therefore, we have no final critical
habitat for the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the frosted
flatwoods salamander on tribal lands.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O.
13211; Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use) on regulations that significantly affect
energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions.
While this final rule to designate critical habitat for the reticulated
flatwoods salamander and frosted flatwoods salamander is a significant
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 in that it may raise novel legal and
policy issues, we do not expect it to significantly affect energy
supplies, distribution, or use. Based on our draft EA (Industrial
Economics Inc. 2008a, p. A-8), none of the nine outcomes that
[[Page 6742]]
may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' exist for this final
rule. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Ray Aycock,
Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Author(s)
The primary author of this document is the Staff of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Service Field
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Public Law 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise
noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11(h) remove the entry for ``Salamander, flatwoods'',
and add entries for ``Salamander, frosted flatwoods'' and ``Salamander,
reticulated flatwoods'' in alphabetical order under ``AMPHIBIANS,'' to
the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife, to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Amphibians
* * * * * * *
Salamander, frosted flatwoods.... Ambystoma cingulatum U.S.A. (FL, GA, SC) Entire............. T 658 17.95(d) NA
* * * * * * *
Salamander, reticulated flatwoods Ambystoma bishopi... U.S.A. (FL, GA).... Entire............. E ........... 17.95(d) NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (d) by adding entries for
``Frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum)'' and
``Reticulated flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma bishopi)'' in the same
alphabetical order that these species appear in the table at Sec.
17.11(h), to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
Frosted Flatwoods Salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Baker, Franklin,
Jefferson, Liberty, and Wakulla Counties in Florida; and Berkeley,
Charleston, and Jasper Counties in South Carolina on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the
frosted flatwoods salamander are:
(i) Breeding habitat. Small (generally less than 1 to 10 ac (less
than 0.4 to 4.0 ha)), acidic, depressional standing bodies of
freshwater (wetlands) that:
(A) Are seasonally flooded by rainfall in late fall or early winter
and dry in late spring or early summer;
(B) Are geographically isolated from other water bodies;
(C) Occur within pine flatwoods-savanna communities;
(D) Are dominated by grasses and grass-like species in the ground
layer and overstories of pond-cypress, blackgum, and slash pine;
(E) Have a relatively open canopy, necessary to maintain the
herbaceous component that serves as cover for flatwoods salamander
larvae and their aquatic invertebrate prey; and
(F) Typically have a burrowing crayfish fauna, but, due to periodic
drying, the breeding ponds typically lack large, predatory fish (for
example, Lepomis (sunfish), Micropterus (bass), Amia calva (bowfin)).
(ii) Non-breeding habitat. Upland pine flatwoods-savanna habitat
that is open, mesic woodland maintained by frequent fires and that:
(A) Is within 1,500 ft (457 m) of adjacent and accessible breeding
ponds;
(B) Contains crayfish burrows or other underground habitat that the
flatwoods salamander depends upon for food, shelter, and protection
from the elements and predation;
(C) Has an organic hardpan in the soil profile, which inhibits
subsurface water penetration and typically results in moist soils with
water often at or near the surface under normal conditions; and
(D) Often has wiregrasses as the dominant grasses in the abundant
herbaceous ground cover, which supports the rich herbivorous
invertebrates that serve as a food source for the frosted flatwoods
salamander.
(iii) Dispersal habitat. Upland habitat areas between nonbreeding
and breeding habitat that allows for salamander movement between such
sites and that is characterized by:
(A) A mix of vegetation types representing a transition between
wetland and upland vegetation (ecotone);
(B) An open canopy and abundant native herbaceous species;
(C) Moist soils as described in paragraph (2)(ii); and
(D) Subsurface structure, such as that provided by deep litter
cover or burrows, that provides shelter for salamanders during seasonal
movements.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they
[[Page 6743]]
are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date
of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created on a base of USGS 7.5' quadrangles, and critical habitat units
were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat for the frosted flatwoods
salamander follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 6744]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 6745]]
(6) Frosted flatwood salamander--Baker, Franklin, Jefferson,
Liberty, and Wakulla Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit FFS-1, Subunit A--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Estiffanulga and Woods, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 691617.99, 3350707.71; 693095.71, 3348233.03; 692983.53,
3348209.57; 692897.48, 3348210.76; 692828.41, 3348229.52; 692759.43,
3348248.25; 692691.40, 3348292.76; 692639.72, 3348326.57; 690393.30,
3350136.47; 690313.39, 3350218.63; 690268.29, 3350291.92; 690230.96,
3350400.29; 690221.36, 3350485.81; 690241.25, 3350627.47; 690274.03,
3350707.04; 690333.43, 3350797.24; 690401.06, 3350865.47; 690279.29,
3350935.03; 690182.82, 3351040.66; 690111.95, 3351227.14; 690119.70,
3351398.31; 690131.84, 3352855.50; 690169.32, 3352993.56; 690267.58,
3353133.94; 690384.46, 3353216.42; 690549.65, 3353261.95; 690664.14,
3353256.77; 690773.74, 3353223.27; 690871.58, 3353163.57; 690968.05,
3353057.95; 692565.25, 3351422.56; 692602.62, 3351378.97; 692634.23,
3351331.03; 692669.80, 3351252.67; 692690.04, 3351169.02; 693379.09,
3348814.26; 693399.33, 3348730.61; 693403.55, 3348644.66; 693391.58,
3348559.43; 693363.86, 3348477.96; 693321.37, 3348403.12; 693265.60,
3348337.58; 693174.08, 3348268.59; 693095.71, 3348233.03.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit A is provided at
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
(ii) Unit FFS-1, Subunit B--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Orange, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 689802.94, 3340960.90; 689428.14, 3339447.54; 689123.11,
3339393.72; 688873.13, 3339525.49; 688743.74, 3339836.26; 688831.13,
3340169.91; 689917.07, 3342147.02; 690004.49, 3342326.33; 690240.38,
3342481.91; 690522.67, 3342469.12; 690726.97, 3342316.32; 690843.40,
3342033.33; 690847.40, 3341805.94; 690741.36, 3341604.76; 689705.63,
3339902.63; 689617.94, 3339656.89; 689428.14, 3339447.54.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit B is provided at
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
(iii) Unit FFS-1, Subunit C--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Wilma, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 695595.00, 3340429.07; 695320.75, 3338608.68; 695308.16,
3338582.86; 695293.97, 3338557.88; 695278.24, 3338533.84; 695261.04,
3338510.84; 695242.42, 3338488.97; 695222.47, 3338468.30; 695201.27,
3338448.93; 695178.88, 3338430.93; 695155.41, 3338414.37; 695130.95,
3338399.31; 695105.59, 3338385.83; 695079.43, 3338373.95; 695052.58,
3338363.76; 695025.14, 3338355.26; 694997.23, 3338348.50; 694968.94,
3338343.51; 694940.40, 3338340.31; 694911.71, 3338338.90; 694882.99,
3338339.30; 694854.35, 3338341.50; 694825.90, 3338345.50; 694797.76,
3338351.27; 694770.05, 3338358.80; 694742.85, 3338368.06; 694709.40,
3338382.20; 694683.58, 3338394.79; 694658.61, 3338408.98; 694634.57,
3338424.71; 694611.57, 3338441.91; 694589.69, 3338460.52; 694569.03,
3338480.47; 694549.66, 3338501.69; 694531.66, 3338524.07; 694515.10,
3338547.54; 694500.05, 3338572.01; 694486.56, 3338597.37; 694474.69,
3338623.53; 694464.49, 3338650.38; 694455.99, 3338677.82; 694449.24,
3338705.74; 694444.25, 3338734.03; 694441.05, 3338762.57; 694439.64,
3338791.26; 694440.04, 3338819.98; 694442.24, 3338848.63; 694446.23,
3338877.07; 694452.01, 3338905.21; 694459.53, 3338932.93; 694468.79,
3338960.12; 694479.73, 3338986.68; 695846.37, 3342195.36; 695866.57,
3342249.11; 695909.07, 3342323.95; 695944.89, 3342368.83; 696008.43,
3342426.87; 696081.72, 3342471.97; 696134.73, 3342494.04; 696218.37,
3342514.28; 696304.32, 3342518.50; 696399.96, 3342505.83; 696481.43,
3342478.10; 696532.23, 3342451.33; 696601.14, 3342399.78; 696659.17,
3342336.24; 696716.14, 3342236.78; 696741.60, 3342154.57; 696751.20,
3342069.05; 696748.60, 3342011.68; 696738.84, 3341955.10; 696711.11,
3341873.63; 695320.75, 3338608.68.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit C is provided at
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
(iv) Unit FFS-1, Subunit D--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Wilma, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 698315.71, 3338507.25; 697480.52, 3338897.39; 697508.44,
3338904.15; 699107.25, 3339112.64; 699249.88, 3339101.68; 699357.17,
3339061.36; 699491.10, 3338954.46; 699566.06, 3338832.62; 699600.72,
3338636.16; 699571.97, 3338496.02; 699501.32, 3338371.62; 699419.16,
3338291.70; 699319.85, 3338227.75; 699161.66, 3338161.88; 697647.47,
3337884.31; 697505.31, 3337868.36; 697338.62, 3337908.06; 697240.79,
3337967.76; 697160.88, 3338049.93; 697093.71, 3338176.24; 697068.86,
3338317.12; 697081.23, 3338431.07; 697135.72, 3338563.34; 697197.51,
3338669.79; 697283.19, 3338784.36; 697400.08, 3338866.83; 697480.52,
3338897.39.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit D is provided at
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
(v) Unit FFS-1, Subunit E--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Orange and Kennedy Creek, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 686367.53, 3332295.84; 686431.12, 3334276.72; 686521.73,
3334038.23; 686486.41, 3333905.93; 686456.16, 3333792.66; 686384.37,
3333673.40; 686529.54, 3333545.42; 686684.99, 3333670.42; 686821.64,
3333712.74; 686964.68, 3333710.75; 689322.67, 3333980.79; 689576.20,
3334009.24; 689736.59, 3333948.97; 689863.53, 3333833.87; 689945.95,
3333652.21; 689948.95, 3333480.88; 689888.68, 3333320.48; 689773.58,
3333193.53; 688133.75, 3332060.68; 687963.85, 3331956.15; 687770.73,
3331922.03; 687750.83, 3331780.36; 687652.31, 3331606.91; 687435.02,
3331473.21; 686480.70, 3331191.98; 686369.22, 3331102.34; 685860.73,
3329667.19; 685722.17, 3329523.69; 685535.70, 3329452.84; 685421.11,
3329450.84; 685283.06, 3329488.34; 685142.70, 3329586.62; 685038.17,
3329756.51; 684075.02, 3330678.79; 683908.10, 3330788.01; 683825.64,
3330904.90; 683780.13, 3331070.10; 683798.63, 3331240.45; 683861.33,
3331369.02; 685068.99, 3333929.17; 685144.99, 3334113.61; 685267.82,
3334233.07; 685426.00, 3334298.93; 685697.77, 3334272.20; 685864.11,
3334411.77; 686057.99, 3334458.69; 686253.39, 3334418.58; 686431.12,
3334276.72.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit E is provided at
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
(vi) Unit FFS-1, Subunit F--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Kennedy Creek, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 686994.66, 3327715.03; 687031.71, 3327259.31; 687003.02,
3327257.90; 686974.30, 3327258.30; 686945.66, 3327260.51; 686917.22,
3327264.50; 686889.08, 3327270.28; 686861.36, 3327277.81; 686834.17,
3327287.06; 686781.80, 3327310.60; 686756.83, 3327324.79; 686718.31,
3327349.17; 686687.92, 3327376.34; 686647.89, 3327417.50; 686629.89,
3327439.88; 686598.28, 3327487.82; 686584.79, 3327513.18; 686562.73,
3327566.19; 686547.48, 3327621.55; 686539.29, 3327678.38; 686538.28,
3327735.79; 686544.48, 3327792.87; 686557.79,
[[Page 6746]]
3327848.73; 686577.99, 3327902.48; 686604.76, 3327953.27; 686627.73,
3327993.87; 686676.26, 3328042.84; 686697.47, 3328062.21; 686719.85,
3328080.21; 686767.79, 3328111.82; 686819.30, 3328137.17; 686873.59,
3328155.87; 686929.80, 3328167.62; 686987.03, 3328172.22; 687072.83,
3328165.62; 687128.68, 3328152.32; 687182.43, 3328132.12; 687233.22,
3328105.34; 687280.26, 3328072.41; 687342.16, 3328012.63; 687391.77,
3327942.31; 687417.12, 3327890.79; 687435.81, 3327836.50; 687447.56,
3327780.29; 687450.76, 3327751.75; 687451.76, 3327694.34; 687445.57,
3327637.25; 687432.26, 3327581.40; 687423.01, 3327554.21; 687385.28,
3327476.86; 687352.35, 3327429.82; 687292.58, 3327367.91; 687222.26,
3327318.30; 687143.89, 3327282.75; 687116.45, 3327274.26; 687088.54,
3327267.50; 687060.25, 3327262.51; 687031.71, 3327259.31.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit F is provided at
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
(vii) Unit FFS-1, Subunit G--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Kennedy Creek and Sumatra, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 692743.43, 3325970.41; 690511.49, 3328333.04; 690352.62,
3327300.27; 690398.82, 3327359.05; 690435.78, 3327418.40; 690476.94,
3327458.44; 690522.80, 3327492.99; 690572.10, 3327512.25; 690653.06,
3327552.10; 690737.82, 3327567.04; 690852.31, 3327561.85; 690961.91,
3327528.34; 691036.74, 3327485.83; 691102.27, 3327430.06; 691139.64,
3327386.47; 691184.74, 3327313.17; 691206.80, 3327260.16; 691226.10,
3327181.87; 691285.53, 3327253.00; 691352.60, 3327306.93; 691428.57,
3327347.33; 691510.78, 3327372.78; 691596.30, 3327382.38; 691653.66,
3327379.78; 691709.33, 3327370.19; 691748.27, 3327399.19; 691798.09,
3327427.72; 691851.10, 3327449.80; 691906.46, 3327465.04; 691963.28,
3327473.24; 691991.97, 3327474.64; 692049.33, 3327472.04; 692105.91,
3327462.27; 692160.82, 3327445.48; 692197.42, 3327442.46; 692254.00,
3327432.70; 692315.34, 3327416.01; 692284.77, 3327496.45; 692273.03,
3327552.66; 692268.42, 3327609.90; 692271.03, 3327667.26; 692288.33,
3327751.56; 692308.53, 3327805.31; 692351.03, 3327880.14; 692388.83,
3327927.78; 692448.61, 3327989.69; 692518.93, 3328039.30; 692570.45,
3328064.66; 692624.74, 3328083.35; 692709.48, 3328098.30; 692766.90,
3328099.31; 692823.98, 3328093.10; 694135.90, 3328069.14; 694193.26,
3328066.53; 694249.84, 3328056.76; 694304.75, 3328039.98; 694357.13,
3328016.44; 694406.14, 3327986.52; 694451.01, 3327950.70; 694491.04,
3327909.54; 694525.60, 3327863.68; 694554.14, 3327813.85; 694576.20,
3327760.84; 694591.45, 3327705.48; 694596.44, 3327677.19; 694601.05,
3327619.96; 694598.45, 3327562.59; 694588.68, 3327506.01; 694571.89,
3327451.10; 694548.36, 3327398.72; 694518.44, 3327349.71; 693770.98,
3326221.08; 693868.81, 3326161.37; 693948.72, 3326079.20; 694005.68,
3325979.75; 694036.11, 3325869.25; 694038.12, 3325754.65; 695152.74,
3325675.90; 695209.97, 3325680.51; 695267.33, 3325677.91; 695323.91,
3325668.13; 695378.82, 3325651.35; 695431.20, 3325627.81; 695480.21,
3325597.89; 695525.08, 3325562.07; 695565.11, 3325520.90; 695581.45,
3325500.59; 695608.30, 3325493.29; 695629.02, 3325486.24; 695635.41,
3325556.71; 695657.97, 3325639.76; 695695.70, 3325717.11; 695728.63,
3325764.15; 695767.20, 3325806.69; 695810.79, 3325844.06; 695864.85,
3325870.66; 695911.78, 3325893.76; 695964.54, 3325919.72; 696020.74,
3325931.47; 696077.98, 3325936.07; 696135.33, 3325933.47; 696219.63,
3325916.16; 696273.38, 3325895.96; 696324.17, 3325869.18; 696371.21,
3325836.25; 696413.74, 3325797.68; 696467.67, 3325730.61; 697336.67,
3324321.07; 697362.02, 3324269.54; 697380.72, 3324215.25; 697392.46,
3324159.04; 697397.07, 3324101.80; 697394.46, 3324044.44; 697384.69,
3323987.86; 697367.90, 3323932.94; 697344.37, 3323880.57; 697314.45,
3323831.55; 697258.68, 3323766.01; 697215.08, 3323728.64; 697167.14,
3323697.03; 697115.63, 3323671.68; 697061.33, 3323652.99; 697005.13,
3323641.24; 696947.90, 3323636.64; 696890.54, 3323639.24; 696806.24,
3323656.54; 696752.49, 3323676.75; 696677.66, 3323719.26; 695425.27,
3324601.45; 694686.48, 3324259.64; 694636.66, 3324231.10; 694583.65,
3324209.03; 694528.29, 3324193.78; 694471.46, 3324185.59; 694414.05,
3324184.59; 694356.97, 3324190.79; 694304.17, 3324203.26; 694297.65,
3324123.23; 694284.34, 3324067.37; 694264.14, 3324013.62; 694237.37,
3323962.82; 694185.82, 3323893.91; 694144.65, 3323853.88; 694084.93,
3323810.79; 694067.06, 3323750.57; 694043.52, 3323698.19; 694010.56,
3323625.86; 693968.05, 3323551.04; 693932.23, 3323506.16; 693868.68,
3323448.13; 693820.75, 3323416.52; 693769.23, 3323391.17; 693714.94,
3323372.47; 693658.74, 3323360.73; 693601.51, 3323356.12; 693544.15,
3323358.72; 693487.56, 3323368.50; 693432.65, 3323385.28; 693380.29,
3323408.82; 693331.27, 3323438.74; 693286.40, 3323474.56; 693246.37,
3323515.72; 693224.54, 3323543.55; 693210.13, 3323497.41; 693186.60,
3323445.03; 693156.69, 3323396.02; 693120.86, 3323351.14; 693079.70,
3323311.11; 693033.84, 3323276.55; 692984.02, 3323248.02; 692931.01,
3323225.95; 692875.65, 3323210.70; 692818.82, 3323202.51; 692761.42,
3323201.50; 692704.33, 3323207.71; 692648.47, 3323221.01; 692608.55,
3323235.51; 692570.41, 3323187.10; 692529.25, 3323147.06; 692458.93,
3323097.45; 692407.41, 3323072.10; 692325.20, 3323046.65; 692268.37,
3323038.46; 692210.96, 3323037.46; 692125.74, 3323049.44; 692070.83,
3323066.22; 692011.40, 3323093.76; 691923.51, 3323089.22; 691866.43,
3323095.42; 691810.57, 3323108.73; 691731.01, 3323141.52; 691682.00,
3323171.44; 691637.13, 3323207.26; 691597.10, 3323248.43; 691562.54,
3323294.28; 691534.00, 3323344.11; 691503.44, 3323424.56; 691491.70,
3323480.77; 691487.09, 3323538.00; 691489.70, 3323595.37; 691507.00,
3323679.67; 691539.79, 3323759.24; 692318.77, 3325166.83; 692288.21,
3325247.29; 692273.27, 3325332.04; 692269.31, 3326096.13; 692212.73,
3326105.90; 692165.53, 3326127.24; 692126.83, 3326144.74; 692092.01,
3326160.48; 692049.42, 3326179.73; 692011.56, 3326211.96; 691971.53,
3326253.13; 691936.98, 3326298.98; 691908.44, 3326348.81; 691872.05,
3326393.76; 691837.49, 3326439.61; 691816.22, 3326475.77; 691767.03,
3326455.43; 691711.68, 3326440.18; 691654.84, 3326431.99; 691626.16,
3326430.59; 691568.79, 3326433.19; 691512.21, 3326442.96; 691457.31,
3326459.75; 691390.25, 3326491.62; 691353.93, 3326429.48; 691298.16,
3326363.94; 691231.09, 3326310.01; 691155.11, 3326269.60; 691072.90,
3326244.15; 689760.49, 3325296.16; 689712.55, 3325264.55; 689661.04,
3325239.20; 689606.75, 3325220.50; 689550.54, 3325208.76; 689493.31,
3325204.15; 689407.51, 3325210.75; 689324.46, 3325233.31; 689247.12,
3325271.04; 689157.55, 3325342.54; 689103.62, 3325409.61; 689063.22,
3325485.59; 689044.52, 3325539.88; 689032.78, 3325596.09; 689028.17,
3325653.33; 689034.77, 3325739.13; 689233.31, 3327105.96; 689637.00,
3328600.37; 689861.46, 3329635.49; 689894.25, 3329715.06; 689924.16,
3329764.07; 689959.98, 3329808.95; 690001.15, 3329848.98; 690047.00,
3329883.54; 690096.82, 3329912.08; 690149.83, 3329934.15; 690205.19,
3329949.40;
[[Page 6747]]
690262.02, 3329957.59; 690319.43, 3329958.59; 690404.65, 3329946.62;
690457.17, 3329926.88; 690511.93, 3329906.30; 690560.94, 3329876.39;
690626.48, 3329820.61; 690663.84, 3329777.02; 690695.45, 3329729.08;
690720.81, 3329677.56; 690739.50, 3329623.27; 690751.25, 3329567.06;
690755.85, 3329509.83; 690749.26, 3329424.02; 690735.95, 3329368.16;
690529.29, 3328448.39; 690524.80, 3328388.90; 690511.49, 3328333.04.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit G is provided at
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
(viii) Unit FFS-1, Subunit H--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Sumatra and Owens Bridge, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 705290.30, 3325041.96; 706646.10, 3324321.38; 706503.21,
3324314.39; 704109.35, 3324557.65; 703953.05, 3324627.90; 703833.59,
3324750.75; 703782.98, 3324853.59; 703758.14, 3324994.48; 703787.30,
3325163.35; 703857.96, 3325287.74; 703940.13, 3325367.66; 704025.87,
3325418.40; 704016.83, 3325569.76; 704034.13, 3325654.07; 704096.85,
3325782.66; 704196.22, 3325885.57; 704322.53, 3325952.74; 704463.41,
3325977.58; 704605.08, 3325957.68; 706601.96, 3325223.59; 706713.46,
3325197.03; 706859.72, 3325107.75; 706949.37, 3324996.25; 707005.16,
3324834.22; 707007.16, 3324719.61; 706989.86, 3324635.31; 706942.88,
3324530.75; 706871.37, 3324441.17; 706796.16, 3324398.25; 706728.31,
3324346.84; 706646.10, 3324321.38.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit H is provided at
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
(ix) Unit FFS-1, Subunit I--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Owens Bridge, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 712262.72, 3326181.63; 712356.33, 3325733.94; 712270.80,
3325724.34; 712213.44, 3325726.95; 712129.13, 3325744.25; 712101.94,
3325753.51; 712024.58, 3325791.24; 711977.54, 3325824.17; 711955.67,
3325842.79; 711915.63, 3325883.96; 711881.07, 3325929.82; 711852.53,
3325979.66; 711830.47, 3326032.67; 711815.21, 3326088.04; 711807.02,
3326144.87; 711805.62, 3326173.57; 711808.22, 3326230.94; 711817.99,
3326287.52; 711834.78, 3326342.44; 711858.32, 3326394.82; 711888.24,
3326443.84; 711905.44, 3326466.84; 711944.01, 3326509.39; 711965.23,
3326528.76; 711987.61, 3326546.76; 712011.09, 3326563.32; 712060.92,
3326591.86; 712087.08, 3326603.73; 712113.93, 3326613.93; 712169.29,
3326629.18; 712226.13, 3326637.37; 712254.82, 3326638.78; 712312.18,
3326636.17; 712368.77, 3326626.40; 712423.68, 3326609.61; 712476.06,
3326586.07; 712525.08, 3326556.15; 712590.62, 3326500.37; 712644.55,
3326433.30; 712684.96, 3326357.30; 712703.65, 3326303.01; 712715.40,
3326246.79; 712720.00, 3326189.55; 712717.40, 3326132.18; 712707.63,
3326075.60; 712700.10, 3326047.87; 712674.07, 3325977.60; 712653.11,
3325943.32; 712601.56, 3325874.40; 712560.39, 3325834.36; 712538.01,
3325816.36; 712514.54, 3325799.80; 712464.71, 3325771.26; 712411.69,
3325749.19; 712356.33, 3325733.94.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit I is provided at
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
(x) Unit FFS-1, Subunit J--Franklin County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Fort Gadsen, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 696448.29, 3312586.05; 697417.53, 3311729.38; 697304.09,
3311713.04; 697218.29, 3311719.64; 697135.24, 3311742.21; 697057.90,
3311779.94; 695449.24, 3312550.89; 695396.87, 3312574.43; 695324.87,
3312621.56; 695282.33, 3312660.13; 695228.41, 3312727.20; 695188.01,
3312803.20; 695162.57, 3312885.41; 695152.98, 3312970.93; 695159.58,
3313056.74; 695182.15, 3313139.79; 695219.88, 3313217.14; 695271.43,
3313286.05; 695335.05, 3313350.76; 695405.38, 3313400.37; 695456.90,
3313425.72; 695511.18, 3313444.41; 695595.94, 3313459.35; 695710.43,
3313454.14; 695820.03, 3313420.63; 697427.52, 3312615.68; 697509.40,
3312574.69; 697581.41, 3312527.56; 697643.31, 3312467.77; 697706.40,
3312372.08; 697743.71, 3312263.71; 697752.89, 3312149.46; 697733.38,
3312036.51; 697686.39, 3311931.97; 697653.45, 3311884.93; 697593.67,
3311823.03; 697523.35, 3311773.42; 697417.53, 3311729.38.
(B) Note: Map of Unit FFS-1 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 6748]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.001
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 6749]]
(xi) Unit FFS-3, Subunit A--Wakulla County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps St. Marks and St. Marks NE, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 775789.22, 3340665.92; 778066.61, 3340484.87; 777670.88,
3338778.31; 777533.15, 3338184.41; 777525.56, 3338156.70; 777516.42,
3338129.40; 777505.42, 3338102.83; 777492.86, 3338076.99; 777478.74,
3338052.00; 777471.13, 3338040.27; 777482.70, 3338036.35; 777509.30,
3338025.48; 777535.17, 3338012.93; 777560.12, 3337998.80; 777584.24,
3337982.99; 777607.24, 3337965.82; 777629.12, 3337947.29; 777649.88,
3337927.29; 777669.21, 3337906.14; 777687.24, 3337883.74; 777703.84,
3337860.31; 777714.90, 3337842.39; 777724.48, 3337852.29; 777745.69,
3337871.69; 777768.09, 3337889.78; 777791.49, 3337906.35; 777815.99,
3337921.39; 777841.30, 3337934.91; 777867.51, 3337946.89; 777894.35,
3337957.11; 777921.81, 3337965.57; 777949.70, 3337972.38; 777978.02,
3337977.42; 777990.29, 3337977.52; 778007.58, 3337977.78; 778035.40,
3337978.19; 778064.31, 3337978.62; 778092.26, 3337979.03; 778121.08,
3337975.61; 778149.29, 3337969.88; 778177.06, 3337962.38; 778204.20,
3337953.08; 778230.80, 3337942.21; 778256.67, 3337929.67; 778281.62,
3337915.43; 778305.74, 3337899.73; 778328.75, 3337882.56; 778350.72,
3337863.93; 778371.38, 3337844.03; 778390.82, 3337822.89; 778408.84,
3337800.49; 778425.45, 3337776.95; 778440.53, 3337752.59; 778454.00,
3337727.19; 778465.95, 3337700.97; 778476.17, 3337674.16; 778484.68,
3337646.75; 778491.46, 3337618.85; 778496.52, 3337590.46; 778499.75,
3337561.92; 778501.16, 3337533.22; 778500.82, 3337504.47; 778498.66,
3337475.90; 778494.65, 3337447.40; 778488.90, 3337419.29; 778481.41,
3337391.48; 778472.17, 3337364.28; 778461.27, 3337337.71; 778448.71,
3337311.87; 778434.49, 3337286.88; 778418.81, 3337262.74; 778401.64,
3337239.78; 778383.01, 3337217.89; 778363.09, 3337197.19; 778341.88,
3337177.80; 778319.48, 3337159.70; 778296.08, 3337143.13; 778271.58,
3337128.08; 778246.27, 3337114.46; 778220.05, 3337102.59; 778193.21,
3337092.37; 778165.75, 3337083.80; 778137.85, 3337077.10; 778109.53,
3337072.05; 778080.97, 3337068.78; 778052.27, 3337067.39; 778023.61,
3337067.77; 777994.91, 3337069.93; 777966.46, 3337073.87; 777938.25,
3337079.59; 777910.58, 3337087.10; 777883.34, 3337096.29; 777856.73,
3337107.26; 777830.96, 3337119.82; 777805.91, 3337133.94; 777781.88,
3337149.75; 777758.79, 3337166.92; 777736.91, 3337185.45; 777716.25,
3337205.45; 777696.81, 3337226.60; 777678.79, 3337249.00; 777662.19,
3337272.43; 777651.12, 3337290.35; 777641.54, 3337280.46; 777620.33,
3337261.06; 777598.03, 3337242.96; 777574.53, 3337226.39; 777550.03,
3337211.35; 777524.72, 3337197.84; 777498.59, 3337185.86; 777471.75,
3337175.64; 777444.29, 3337167.07; 777416.30, 3337160.37; 777410.25,
3337159.33; 777411.85, 3337145.51; 777413.25, 3337116.80; 777412.92,
3337088.06; 777410.75, 3337059.38; 777406.74, 3337030.88; 777400.99,
3337002.77; 777393.49, 3336975.07; 777384.25, 3336947.76; 777373.35,
3336921.19; 777360.79, 3336895.35; 777346.57, 3336870.36; 777330.87,
3336846.33; 777313.71, 3336823.27; 777295.07, 3336801.38; 777275.15,
3336780.69; 777253.94, 3336761.29; 777231.63, 3336743.20; 777208.13,
3336726.63; 777183.73, 3336711.59; 777158.32, 3336698.08; 777132.19,
3336686.10; 777105.35, 3336675.88; 777077.88, 3336667.42; 777049.99,
3336660.62; 777021.67, 3336655.58; 776993.11, 3336652.30; 776964.40,
3336650.92; 776935.65, 3336651.30; 776907.05, 3336653.46; 776878.50,
3336657.40; 776850.38, 3336663.13; 776822.61, 3336670.64; 776795.47,
3336679.83; 776768.87, 3336690.81; 776742.99, 3336703.36; 776718.05,
3336717.49; 776693.93, 3336733.19; 776670.93, 3336750.37; 776648.95,
3336769.01; 776628.29, 3336788.90; 776608.85, 3336810.16; 776590.83,
3336832.56; 776574.23, 3336856.00; 776570.11, 3336862.66; 776553.01,
3336856.13; 776525.55, 3336847.67; 776497.65, 3336840.87; 776469.33,
3336835.83; 776440.77, 3336832.56; 776412.07, 3336831.17; 776383.32,
3336831.56; 776354.72, 3336833.72; 776326.26, 3336837.66; 776298.05,
3336843.39; 776270.38, 3336850.90; 776243.14, 3336860.09; 776216.54,
3336871.08; 776190.67, 3336883.63; 776165.72, 3336897.76; 776141.60,
3336913.46; 776118.60, 3336930.63; 776096.72, 3336949.28; 776075.97,
3336969.17; 776056.63, 3336990.43; 776038.52, 3337012.83; 776021.92,
3337036.27; 776006.84, 3337060.74; 775993.38, 3337086.03; 775981.43,
3337112.25; 775971.21, 3337139.07; 775962.71, 3337166.48; 775955.93,
3337194.49; 775950.88, 3337222.77; 775947.66, 3337251.31; 775946.17,
3337280.01; 775946.60, 3337308.76; 775948.78, 3337337.32; 775952.69,
3337365.83; 775958.44, 3337394.04; 775965.94, 3337421.74; 775975.19,
3337448.94; 775986.10, 3337475.51; 775998.66, 3337501.34; 776012.79,
3337526.33; 776028.58, 3337550.47; 776045.74, 3337573.53; 776064.28,
3337595.41; 776084.30, 3337616.11; 776105.42, 3337635.50; 776127.82,
3337653.48; 776151.32, 3337670.16; 776175.72, 3337685.20; 776201.13,
3337698.71; 776227.26, 3337710.57; 776244.06, 3337717.09; 776242.57,
3337718.94; 776232.10, 3337713.35; 776205.89, 3337701.38; 776179.04,
3337691.16; 776151.58, 3337682.70; 776123.69, 3337675.90; 776095.37,
3337670.86; 776066.81, 3337667.59; 776038.11, 3337666.20; 776009.36,
3337666.59; 775980.76, 3337668.76; 775952.31, 3337672.70; 775924.10,
3337678.43; 775896.43, 3337685.94; 775869.20, 3337695.13; 775842.60,
3337706.12; 775816.73, 3337718.67; 775791.78, 3337732.80; 775767.66,
3337748.50; 775744.67, 3337765.68; 775722.70, 3337784.32; 775702.04,
3337804.22; 775682.61, 3337825.48; 775664.59, 3337847.77; 775648.00,
3337871.32; 775632.92, 3337895.68; 775619.36, 3337921.08; 775607.52,
3337947.30; 775597.30, 3337974.11; 775588.70, 3338001.52; 775581.93,
3338029.42; 775576.97, 3338057.81; 775573.65, 3338086.36; 775572.26,
3338115.06; 775572.59, 3338143.80; 775574.77, 3338172.37; 775578.78,
3338200.87; 775584.54, 3338228.98; 775592.03, 3338256.79; 775601.19,
3338283.98; 775612.19, 3338310.55; 775624.75, 3338336.39; 775638.88,
3338361.37; 775654.57, 3338385.51; 775671.73, 3338408.46; 775690.37,
3338430.46; 775710.29, 3338451.15; 775731.50, 3338470.54; 775753.90,
3338488.52; 775777.31, 3338505.09; 775801.80, 3338520.24; 775827.21,
3338533.75; 775853.33, 3338545.61; 775880.17, 3338555.94; 775907.63,
3338564.39; 775935.52, 3338571.20; 775963.84, 3338576.23; 775992.39,
3338579.50; 776021.09, 3338580.89; 776049.84, 3338580.50; 776078.53,
3338578.34; 776106.98, 3338574.40; 776135.09, 3338568.67; 776162.85,
3338561.16; 776190.08, 3338551.97; 776216.69, 3338540.99; 776242.46,
3338528.43; 776267.50, 3338514.30; 776291.52, 3338498.60; 776314.61,
3338481.43; 776336.49, 3338462.78; 776357.24, 3338442.89; 776376.58,
3338421.63; 776392.70, 3338401.62; 776403.17, 3338407.21; 776429.29,
3338419.08; 776456.13, 3338429.40; 776483.59, 3338437.86; 776511.57,
3338444.67; 776539.80, 3338449.71; 776568.35, 3338452.98; 776597.05,
3338454.37; 776625.80, 3338453.98; 776654.49, 3338451.82; 776660.01,
3338451.07; 776670.54, 3338476.85; 776827.26, 3339164.36; 777053.70,
3340157.85;
[[Page 6750]]
775510.45, 3340235.09; 775168.35, 3339961.10; 775144.54, 3339940.36;
775091.43, 3339897.57; 774949.30, 3339783.09; 774965.89, 3339759.65;
774980.97, 3339735.17; 774994.43, 3339709.77; 775006.36, 3339683.66;
775016.58, 3339656.74; 775025.08, 3339629.33; 775031.95, 3339601.43;
775036.90, 3339573.15; 775039.60, 3339549.86; 775040.22, 3339544.61;
775041.61, 3339515.91; 775041.27, 3339487.16; 775041.13, 3339484.94;
775057.54, 3339480.47; 775084.67, 3339471.27; 775111.27, 3339460.29;
775137.13, 3339447.74; 775162.17, 3339433.61; 775186.18, 3339417.90;
775209.27, 3339400.73; 775231.15, 3339382.08; 775251.80, 3339362.18;
775271.23, 3339340.93; 775289.24, 3339318.63; 775305.83, 3339295.08;
775321.00, 3339270.72; 775334.47, 3339245.32; 775346.40, 3339219.21;
775356.62, 3339192.29; 775365.12, 3339164.87; 775371.89, 3339136.97;
775376.94, 3339108.70; 775380.17, 3339080.04; 775381.66, 3339051.34;
775381.32, 3339022.71; 775379.14, 3338994.03; 775375.13, 3338965.53;
775369.38, 3338937.42; 775361.88, 3338909.61; 775352.63, 3338882.42;
775341.73, 3338855.85; 775329.16, 3338830.02; 775315.04, 3338805.03;
775299.35, 3338780.89; 775282.09, 3338757.94; 775263.54, 3338735.95;
775243.62, 3338715.26; 775222.41, 3338695.86; 775200.01, 3338677.88;
775176.51, 3338661.32; 775152.11, 3338646.17; 775126.70, 3338632.67;
775100.58, 3338620.80; 775073.74, 3338610.48; 775046.28, 3338602.03;
775018.39, 3338595.22; 774990.07, 3338590.19; 774961.52, 3338586.92;
774932.82, 3338585.54; 774904.08, 3338585.82; 774875.38, 3338588.09;
774846.93, 3338592.04; 774818.83, 3338597.77; 774791.06, 3338605.29;
774763.83, 3338614.48; 774737.24, 3338625.35; 774711.37, 3338638.02;
774686.43, 3338652.15; 774662.31, 3338667.86; 774639.71, 3338684.71;
774638.37, 3338684.57; 774609.67, 3338683.18; 774582.28, 3338683.50;
774581.67, 3338680.60; 774574.17, 3338652.89; 774564.92, 3338625.59;
774554.01, 3338599.02; 774541.45, 3338573.19; 774527.32, 3338548.21;
774511.63, 3338524.18; 774494.37, 3338501.12; 774475.82, 3338479.24;
774455.89, 3338458.55; 774434.69, 3338439.05; 774412.28, 3338421.07;
774388.88, 3338404.51; 774364.38, 3338389.36; 774338.97, 3338375.86;
774312.85, 3338364.00; 774286.01, 3338353.68; 774258.55, 3338345.22;
774230.66, 3338338.43; 774202.34, 3338333.39; 774173.78, 3338330.13;
774145.08, 3338328.74; 774116.34, 3338329.03; 774087.74, 3338331.20;
774059.19, 3338335.25; 774031.09, 3338340.99; 774003.32, 3338348.51;
773976.09, 3338357.70; 773949.59, 3338368.58; 773923.73, 3338381.14;
773898.69, 3338395.38; 773874.67, 3338411.09; 773851.58, 3338428.26;
773829.72, 3338446.80; 773808.97, 3338466.81; 773789.64, 3338487.96;
773771.53, 3338510.37; 773754.94, 3338533.81; 773739.86, 3338558.28;
773726.41, 3338583.58; 773714.47, 3338609.79; 773704.26, 3338636.61;
773695.67, 3338664.02; 773688.90, 3338692.03; 773683.85, 3338720.31;
773680.63, 3338748.86; 773679.24, 3338777.56; 773679.59, 3338806.30;
773681.77, 3338834.98; 773685.69, 3338863.37; 773691.44, 3338891.58;
773698.95, 3338919.28; 773708.20, 3338946.47; 773719.11, 3338973.04;
773731.67, 3338998.98; 773745.80, 3339023.97; 773761.50, 3339047.99;
773778.76, 3339071.05; 773797.31, 3339092.93; 773817.23, 3339113.62;
773838.44, 3339133.01; 773860.84, 3339151.10; 773884.34, 3339167.66;
773908.74, 3339182.80; 773934.15, 3339196.31; 773960.27, 3339208.16;
773987.11, 3339218.38; 774014.57, 3339226.94; 774042.46, 3339233.74;
774070.77, 3339238.77; 774099.33, 3339242.04; 774128.03, 3339243.42;
774155.42, 3339242.99; 774156.02, 3339246.00; 774163.52, 3339273.71;
774172.77, 3339301.01; 774174.22, 3339304.59; 774174.02, 3339304.92;
774162.19, 3339331.03; 774151.88, 3339357.85; 774143.38, 3339385.37;
774136.61, 3339413.27; 774131.56, 3339441.55; 774128.34, 3339470.09;
774126.85, 3339498.79; 774127.29, 3339527.54; 774129.37, 3339556.21;
774133.39, 3339584.61; 774139.14, 3339612.82; 774146.65, 3339640.52;
774150.33, 3339651.49; 774130.27, 3339662.97; 774106.16, 3339678.68;
774083.17, 3339695.85; 774061.21, 3339714.39; 774040.56, 3339734.40;
774021.14, 3339755.55; 774003.13, 3339777.95; 773986.54, 3339801.39;
773971.46, 3339825.87; 773957.91, 3339851.27; 773945.98, 3339877.38;
773935.76, 3339904.19; 773927.27, 3339931.72; 773926.18, 3339936.26;
773926.14, 3339936.25; 773920.50, 3339959.62; 773915.45, 3339987.90;
773912.23, 3340016.44; 773910.75, 3340045.14; 773910.93, 3340060.90;
773909.63, 3340058.87; 773892.47, 3340035.81; 773873.92, 3340013.93;
773853.91, 3339993.24; 773832.70, 3339973.85; 773810.39, 3339955.76;
773786.90, 3339939.20; 773777.78, 3339933.61; 773777.91, 3339933.62;
773762.40, 3339924.06; 773737.09, 3339910.55; 773710.97, 3339898.70;
773684.04, 3339888.48; 773656.68, 3339879.92; 773628.70, 3339873.12;
773600.38, 3339868.09; 773571.83, 3339864.83; 773543.13, 3339863.45;
773514.39, 3339863.73; 773485.80, 3339865.90; 773476.45, 3339867.03;
773476.45, 3339867.18; 773457.35, 3339869.96; 773429.15, 3339875.70;
773401.39, 3339883.21; 773374.17, 3339892.41; 773347.58, 3339903.29;
773321.81, 3339915.85; 773296.78, 3339930.09; 773272.67, 3339945.80;
773249.68, 3339962.98; 773227.82, 3339981.52; 773207.07, 3340001.53;
773187.65, 3340022.68; 773169.64, 3340045.08; 773153.05, 3340068.52;
773137.98, 3340093.00; 773124.43, 3340118.29; 773112.50, 3340144.51;
773102.29, 3340171.33; 773093.80, 3340198.74; 773086.93, 3340226.64;
773081.99, 3340255.03; 773078.67, 3340283.58; 773077.28, 3340312.28;
773077.63, 3340341.02; 773079.81, 3340369.59; 773083.82, 3340398.09;
773089.48, 3340426.30; 773096.99, 3340454.00; 773106.24, 3340481.19;
773117.15, 3340507.76; 773129.71, 3340533.59; 773143.94, 3340558.68;
773159.63, 3340582.71; 773176.80, 3340605.77; 773195.44, 3340627.64;
773215.36, 3340648.33; 773236.57, 3340667.72; 773240.54, 3340670.93;
774190.69, 3341600.54; 774207.73, 3341623.69; 774226.19, 3341645.71;
774245.99, 3341666.54; 774267.06, 3341686.08; 774289.32, 3341704.26;
774312.67, 3341721.00; 774337.03, 3341736.25; 774362.30, 3341749.94;
774388.38, 3341762.01; 774415.16, 3341772.42; 774442.55, 3341781.13;
774470.43, 3341788.10; 774498.69, 3341793.31; 774527.22, 3341796.73;
774555.91, 3341798.36; 774584.65, 3341798.18; 774613.32, 3341796.20;
774641.80, 3341792.42; 774670.00, 3341786.86; 774697.79, 3341779.54;
774725.06, 3341770.48; 774751.71, 3341759.74; 774777.64, 3341747.34;
774802.74, 3341733.34; 774826.90, 3341717.79; 774850.05, 3341700.75;
774872.07, 3341682.30; 774892.90, 3341662.49; 774912.44, 3341641.42;
775378.58, 3341173.26; 775544.57, 3341006.80; 777609.30, 3341044.76;
777638.03, 3341044.58; 777666.70, 3341042.60; 777680.70, 3341040.35;
777695.19, 3341038.82; 777723.39, 3341033.26; 777751.18, 3341025.93;
777778.45, 3341016.88; 777805.10, 3341006.14; 777831.03, 3340993.74;
777856.13, 3340979.74; 777880.29, 3340964.19; 777903.44, 3340947.15;
777925.47, 3340928.69; 777946.29, 3340908.89; 777965.83, 3340887.82;
777984.01, 3340865.56; 778000.76, 3340842.21; 778016.00, 3340817.85;
778029.69, 3340792.58; 778041.76, 3340766.50; 778052.18, 3340739.71;
778060.89, 3340712.33; 778067.86, 3340684.45; 778073.07, 3340656.19;
[[Page 6751]]
778076.49, 3340627.65; 778078.11, 3340598.96; 778077.93, 3340570.22;
778075.95, 3340541.55; 778072.17, 3340513.07; 778066.61, 3340484.87.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-3, Subunit A is provided at
paragraph (6)(xiii)(B) of this entry.
(xii) Unit FFS-3, Subunit B--Wakulla and Jefferson Counties,
Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map St. Marks NE, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 781813.02, 3338564.97; 780854.75, 3336748.56; 780826.19,
3336745.28; 780797.49, 3336743.88; 780768.74, 3336744.25; 780751.83,
3336745.48; 780740.73, 3336730.55; 780722.10, 3336708.66; 780702.18,
3336687.96; 780680.97, 3336668.56; 780658.57, 3336650.57; 780635.18,
3336633.88; 780610.68, 3336618.83; 780585.37, 3336605.31; 780559.15,
3336593.44; 780532.31, 3336583.21; 780504.85, 3336574.63; 780476.95,
3336567.82; 780448.63, 3336562.88; 780420.07, 3336559.60; 780391.36,
3336558.20; 780362.71, 3336558.58; 780334.01, 3336560.73; 780305.55,
3336564.66; 780277.43, 3336570.38; 780249.66, 3336577.88; 780222.42,
3336587.17; 780195.81, 3336598.03; 780170.02, 3336610.69; 780144.97,
3336624.81; 780120.94, 3336640.51; 780097.94, 3336657.67; 780075.95,
3336676.31; 780055.29, 3336696.20; 780035.94, 3336717.45; 780017.82,
3336739.85; 780001.31, 3336763.28; 779986.22, 3336787.75; 779972.64,
3336813.14; 779960.79, 3336839.25; 779950.56, 3336866.06; 779941.95,
3336893.58; 779935.16, 3336921.48; 779930.20, 3336949.76; 779926.96,
3336978.30; 779925.49, 3337005.78; 779913.72, 3337013.47; 779890.72,
3337030.63; 779868.74, 3337049.27; 779848.07, 3337069.16; 779828.63,
3337090.41; 779810.60, 3337112.81; 779794.09, 3337136.24; 779779.00,
3337160.71; 779765.43, 3337186.11; 779753.58, 3337212.21; 779743.35,
3337239.02; 779734.74, 3337266.54; 779727.96, 3337294.44; 779722.99,
3337322.72; 779719.76, 3337351.26; 779718.26, 3337379.96; 779718.68,
3337408.71; 779720.84, 3337437.39; 779724.75, 3337465.89; 779730.49,
3337494.00; 779738.08, 3337521.71; 779747.22, 3337548.90; 779758.21,
3337575.59; 779770.77, 3337601.43; 779784.89, 3337626.42; 779800.67,
3337650.46; 779817.83, 3337673.53; 779836.46, 3337695.42; 779856.38,
3337716.12; 779877.58, 3337735.52; 779899.88, 3337753.51; 779923.38,
3337770.08; 779947.87, 3337785.24; 779973.18, 3337798.76; 779999.40,
3337810.63; 780026.23, 3337820.86; 780046.61, 3337827.26; 780031.54,
3337835.75; 780007.52, 3337851.45; 779984.42, 3337868.61; 779962.53,
3337887.25; 779941.87, 3337907.14; 779922.43, 3337928.39; 779904.40,
3337950.79; 779887.80, 3337974.22; 779872.71, 3337998.69; 779859.23,
3338024.09; 779859.02, 3338024.55; 779847.29, 3338050.19; 779837.06,
3338077.00; 779828.54, 3338104.52; 779821.76, 3338132.42; 779816.70,
3338160.70; 779813.46, 3338189.24; 779812.06, 3338217.94; 779812.38,
3338246.69; 779814.55, 3338275.37; 779818.54, 3338303.87; 779824.29,
3338331.98; 779831.78, 3338359.69; 779841.02, 3338386.88; 779851.91,
3338413.57; 779864.56, 3338439.41; 779878.68, 3338464.40; 779894.36,
3338488.43; 779911.61, 3338511.51; 779930.15, 3338533.40; 779950.16,
3338554.10; 779971.36, 3338573.50; 779993.66, 3338591.49; 780017.15,
3338608.07; 780041.65, 3338623.23; 780066.95, 3338636.74; 780093.17,
3338648.62; 780120.00, 3338658.84; 780147.46, 3338667.42; 780175.35,
3338674.13; 780203.67, 3338679.18; 780232.22, 3338682.46; 780260.92,
3338683.85; 780289.67, 3338683.48; 780318.27, 3338681.32; 781659.28,
3338623.11; 783371.06, 3341075.49; 783388.08, 3341098.65; 783406.52,
3341120.69; 783426.31, 3341141.53; 783447.37, 3341161.09; 783469.61,
3341179.28; 783492.96, 3341196.05; 783517.31, 3341211.31; 783542.57,
3341225.02; 783568.64, 3341237.11; 783595.42, 3341247.54; 783622.80,
3341256.27; 783650.68, 3341263.26; 783678.94, 3341268.49; 783707.47,
3341271.93; 783736.16, 3341273.58; 783764.90, 3341273.42; 783793.57,
3341271.45; 783822.06, 3341267.69; 783850.26, 3341262.15; 783878.06,
3341254.85; 783905.34, 3341245.82; 783932.00, 3341235.09; 783957.94,
3341222.71; 783983.05, 3341208.72; 784007.23, 3341193.19; 784030.38,
3341176.17; 784052.42, 3341157.73; 784073.27, 3341137.94; 784092.82,
3341116.88; 784111.02, 3341094.63; 784127.78, 3341071.29; 784143.04,
3341046.94; 784156.75, 3341021.68; 784168.84, 3340995.61; 784179.27,
3340968.83; 784188.00, 3340941.45; 784194.99, 3340913.57; 784200.22,
3340885.31; 784203.67, 3340856.78; 784205.31, 3340828.09; 784205.15,
3340799.35; 784203.19, 3340770.67; 784199.43, 3340742.18; 784193.88,
3340713.98; 784186.58, 3340686.19; 784177.55, 3340658.90; 784166.82,
3340632.24; 784154.44, 3340606.31; 784140.46, 3340581.20; 784124.92,
3340557.02; 782277.60, 3337914.11; 782294.12, 3337890.57; 782309.21,
3337866.10; 782322.78, 3337840.82; 782334.64, 3337814.60; 782344.88,
3337787.79; 782353.40, 3337760.27; 782360.19, 3337732.38; 782365.26,
3337704.10; 782368.50, 3337675.56; 782369.91, 3337646.86; 782369.59,
3337618.11; 782367.34, 3337589.43; 782363.44, 3337561.03; 782357.70,
3337532.81; 782350.22, 3337505.10; 782340.98, 3337477.90; 782330.00,
3337451.33; 782317.45, 3337425.48; 782303.24, 3337400.49; 782287.56,
3337376.34; 782270.41, 3337353.37; 782251.78, 3337331.48; 782231.86,
3337310.77; 782210.66, 3337291.37; 782188.27, 3337273.26; 782164.78,
3337256.68; 782140.38, 3337241.63; 782114.97, 3337228.11; 781683.92,
3337059.84; 780938.43, 3336768.89; 780910.97, 3336760.31; 780883.08,
3336753.50; 780854.75, 3336748.56.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-3, Subunit B is located at
paragraph (6)(xiii)(B) of this entry.
(xiii) Unit FFS-3, Subunit C--Jefferson County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Cody, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 784571.80, 3351736.64; 784608.07, 3351280.60; 784579.36,
3351279.22; 784554.83, 3351279.59; 784550.62, 3351279.65; 784521.97,
3351281.88; 784493.51, 3351285.91; 784465.37, 3351291.71; 784437.64,
3351299.27; 784410.44, 3351308.56; 784383.88, 3351319.54; 784358.06,
3351332.16; 784333.09, 3351346.38; 784309.05, 3351362.14; 784286.06,
3351379.37; 784264.19, 3351398.02; 784243.53, 3351418.00; 784224.17,
3351439.25; 784206.19, 3351461.66; 784189.64, 3351485.16; 784174.61,
3351509.65; 784161.14, 3351535.04; 784149.29, 3351561.22; 784139.11,
3351588.10; 784130.64, 3351615.56; 784123.90, 3351643.50; 784118.94,
3351671.81; 784115.76, 3351700.37; 784114.38, 3351729.08; 784114.81,
3351757.81; 784117.04, 3351786.47; 784121.07, 3351814.92; 784126.87,
3351843.07; 784134.43, 3351870.80; 784143.72, 3351897.99; 784154.70,
3351924.55; 784167.32, 3351950.37; 784181.54, 3351975.35; 784197.30,
3351999.38; 784214.53, 3352022.38; 784233.18, 3352044.25; 784253.16,
3352064.90; 784274.40, 3352084.26; 784296.82, 3352102.25; 784320.32,
3352118.79; 784344.81, 3352133.83; 784370.20, 3352147.30; 784396.38,
3352159.15; 784423.26, 3352169.33; 784450.72, 3352177.80; 784478.66,
3352184.53; 784506.97, 3352189.50; 784535.53, 3352192.68; 784558.55,
3352193.78; 784564.24, 3352194.05; 784592.97, 3352193.63; 784621.63,
3352191.40; 784650.08, 3352187.37; 784678.23, 3352181.56; 784705.96,
3352174.00; 784733.15, 3352164.72; 784759.71,
[[Page 6752]]
3352153.74; 784785.53, 3352141.12; 784810.51, 3352126.90; 784834.54,
3352111.14; 784857.54, 3352093.90; 784879.41, 3352075.26; 784900.06,
3352055.27; 784919.42, 3352034.03; 784937.41, 3352011.62; 784953.96,
3351988.12; 784968.99, 3351963.63; 784982.46, 3351938.24; 784994.31,
3351912.06; 785004.49, 3351885.18; 785012.96, 3351857.72; 785019.70,
3351829.78; 785024.66, 3351801.47; 785027.84, 3351772.91; 785029.21,
3351744.20; 785028.79, 3351715.46; 785026.56, 3351686.81; 785022.53,
3351658.36; 785016.72, 3351630.21; 785009.16, 3351602.48; 784999.88,
3351575.28; 784988.90, 3351548.72; 784976.28, 3351522.90; 784962.06,
3351497.93; 784946.30, 3351473.89; 784929.06, 3351450.90; 784910.42,
3351429.03; 784890.43, 3351408.37; 784869.19, 3351389.01; 784846.78,
3351371.03; 784823.28, 3351354.48; 784798.79, 3351339.44; 784773.40,
3351325.98; 784747.21, 3351314.13; 784720.34, 3351303.95; 784692.88,
3351295.47; 784664.94, 3351288.74; 784636.63, 3351283.78; 784608.07,
3351280.60.
(B) Note: Map of Unit FFS-3 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 6753]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.002
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 6754]]
(xiv) Unit FFS-4, Subunit A--Baker County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Big Gum Swamp and Sanderson North,
Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 17N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 367084.38, 3347273.00; 367857.36, 3347865.13; 367885.57,
3347850.05; 367910.67, 3347848.97; 367939.21, 3347845.97; 367967.54,
3347841.08; 367995.46, 3347834.54; 368022.88, 3347826.11; 368076.03,
3347804.41; 368126.01, 3347776.10; 368149.58, 3347759.63; 368172.08,
3347741.85; 368213.36, 3347702.00; 368249.49, 3347657.34; 368279.60,
3347608.54; 368303.41, 3347556.26; 368320.55, 3347501.41; 368326.47,
3347473.30; 368330.56, 3347444.98; 368333.52, 3347387.64; 368329.18,
3347330.38; 368324.31, 3347302.07; 368309.40, 3347246.60; 368287.59,
3347193.55; 368274.29, 3347168.10; 368242.92, 3347120.04; 368205.82,
3347076.15; 368163.49, 3347037.42; 368116.61, 3347004.29; 368066.05,
3346977.19; 368012.39, 3346956.67; 367956.61, 3346943.15; 366301.34,
3346652.76; 366243.94, 3346653.45; 366187.08, 3346661.34; 366131.66,
3346676.29; 366078.54, 3346698.07; 366028.58, 3346726.33; 365982.55,
3346760.63; 365941.18, 3346800.43; 365889.28, 3346869.05; 365862.23,
3346919.69; 365841.75, 3346973.32; 365828.15, 3347029.09; 365821.64,
3347086.12; 365822.34, 3347143.52; 365830.23, 3347200.39; 365845.18,
3347255.81; 365866.95, 3347308.92; 365895.22, 3347358.89; 365948.77,
3347426.23; 365991.09, 3347465.01; 366037.94, 3347498.19; 366088.58,
3347525.23; 366142.20, 3347545.72; 367577.52, 3347903.88; 367634.57,
3347910.39; 367692.00, 3347909.70; 367748.88, 3347901.80; 367804.22,
3347886.84; 367857.36, 3347865.13.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-3, Subunit A is provided at
paragraph (6)(xv)(B) of this entry.
(xv) Unit FFS-4, Subunit B: Baker County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Sanderson North, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 17N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 372674.15, 3352411.84; 372686.30, 3351954.90; 372657.58,
3351955.03; 372628.93, 3351956.98; 372600.46, 3351960.71; 372572.28,
3351966.23; 372544.50, 3351973.51; 372517.23, 3351982.51; 372490.58,
3351993.21; 372464.66, 3352005.56; 372439.56, 3352019.52; 372415.39,
3352035.02; 372392.24, 3352052.02; 372370.20, 3352070.43; 372349.36,
3352090.19; 372329.81, 3352111.21; 372311.61, 3352133.43; 372294.84,
3352156.74; 372279.57, 3352181.06; 372265.86, 3352206.29; 372253.76,
3352232.34; 372243.32, 3352259.09; 372234.58, 3352286.44; 372227.57,
3352314.29; 372222.33, 3352342.52; 372218.86, 3352371.03; 372217.20,
3352399.70; 372217.34, 3352428.41; 372219.28, 3352457.06; 372223.02,
3352485.54; 372228.54, 3352513.72; 372235.81, 3352541.50; 372244.82,
3352568.77; 372255.52, 3352595.41; 372267.87, 3352621.34; 372281.83,
3352646.43; 372297.33, 3352670.61; 372314.32, 3352693.76; 372332.73,
3352715.79; 372352.49, 3352736.63; 372373.52, 3352756.19; 372395.74,
3352774.38; 372419.05, 3352791.15; 372443.37, 3352806.42; 372468.60,
3352820.13; 372494.64, 3352832.23; 372521.39, 3352842.68; 372548.75,
3352851.42; 372576.60, 3352858.42; 372604.83, 3352863.67; 372633.34,
3352867.13; 372662.00, 3352868.79; 372690.72, 3352868.66; 372719.37,
3352866.71; 372747.84, 3352862.98; 372776.02, 3352857.46; 372803.80,
3352850.18; 372831.07, 3352841.18; 372857.72, 3352830.48; 372883.64,
3352818.12; 372908.74, 3352804.17; 372932.91, 3352788.66; 372956.06,
3352771.67; 372978.10, 3352753.26; 372998.94, 3352733.50; 373018.49,
3352712.47; 373036.69, 3352690.26; 373053.46, 3352666.95; 373068.73,
3352642.63; 373082.44, 3352617.40; 373094.54, 3352591.35; 373104.98,
3352564.60; 373113.72, 3352537.25; 373120.73, 3352509.40; 373125.97,
3352481.17; 373129.43, 3352452.66; 373131.10, 3352423.99; 373130.96,
3352395.28; 373129.02, 3352366.63; 373125.28, 3352338.15; 373119.76,
3352309.97; 373112.49, 3352282.19; 373103.48, 3352254.92; 373092.78,
3352228.28; 373080.43, 3352202.35; 373066.47, 3352177.26; 373050.97,
3352153.08; 373033.98, 3352129.93; 373015.57, 3352107.90; 372995.81,
3352087.06; 372974.78, 3352067.50; 372952.56, 3352049.31; 372929.25,
3352032.54; 372904.93, 3352017.27; 372879.70, 3352003.56; 372853.66,
3351991.46; 372826.91, 3351981.01; 372799.55, 3351972.27; 372771.70,
3351965.27; 372743.47, 3351960.02; 372714.96, 3351956.56; 372686.30,
3351954.90.
(B) Note: Map of Unit FFS-4 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 6755]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.003
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 6756]]
(7) Frosted flatwood salamander--Berkeley, Charleston, and Jasper
Counties, South Carolina.
(i) Unit FFS-5, Subunit A--Jasper County, South Carolina. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Limehouse, South Carolina.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 17N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 497847.74, 3566350.32; 498446.09, 3566295.60; 498439.16,
3566219.48; 498471.15, 3566178.02; 498514.08, 3566169.34; 498465.77,
3566061.18; 498347.55, 3566000.50; 498335.98, 3566046.55; 498253.70,
3566211.29; 498242.87, 3566287.84; 498145.31, 3566241.91; 498093.47,
3566197.40; 497998.76, 3566059.86; 497934.00, 3565901.25; 497898.67,
3565909.74; 497750.14, 3565959.14; 497684.01, 3565953.12; 497606.99,
3565916.86; 497442.74, 3566050.55; 497406.11, 3566214.18; 497415.01,
3566475.87; 497493.26, 3566667.21; 497540.65, 3566737.25; 497620.82,
3566798.86; 497732.91, 3566816.47; 497862.02, 3566803.14; 497974.49,
3566781.53; 497979.42, 3566780.58; 497992.64, 3566773.81; 497990.36,
3566773.41; 497991.28, 3566768.03; 497987.84, 3566757.91; 497989.91,
3566748.69; 497989.47, 3566747.94; 497988.60, 3566711.90; 497989.72,
3566675.82; 498042.65, 3566632.46; 498093.51, 3566608.11; 498098.16,
3566599.05; 498150.81, 3566572.33; 498174.50, 3566503.10; 498224.43,
3566468.83; 498297.24, 3566436.54; 498367.33, 3566396.68; 498406.68,
3566344.87; 498446.09, 3566295.60.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-5, Subunit A is provided at
paragraph (7)(ii)(B) of this entry.
(ii) Unit FFS-5, Subunit B--Jasper County, South Carolina. From
USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Hardeeville, South Carolina.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 17N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 489561.94, 3573503.59; 489722.85, 3573967.97; 489813.22,
3573903.16; 489904.81, 3573840.10; 489926.27, 3573824.52; 489946.02,
3573806.80; 489963.82, 3573787.14; 489979.50, 3573765.74; 489992.88,
3573742.83; 490003.82, 3573718.67; 490012.20, 3573693.50; 490017.94,
3573667.60; 490016.20, 3573652.66; 490013.19, 3573637.92; 490015.98,
3573632.12; 490025.87, 3573604.58; 490032.87, 3573576.16; 490036.91,
3573547.18; 490037.03, 3573543.60; 490041.81, 3573520.55; 490043.92,
3573497.11; 490043.41, 3573474.57; 490040.43, 3573452.23; 490035.01,
3573430.36; 490027.22, 3573409.21; 490026.77, 3573385.43; 490023.98,
3573361.81; 490018.89, 3573338.58; 490011.54, 3573315.96; 490002.00,
3573294.17; 489990.37, 3573273.42; 489980.99, 3573259.55; 489970.67,
3573246.37; 489959.67, 3573227.66; 489937.65, 3573195.84; 489913.35,
3573165.71; 489886.91, 3573137.45; 489858.47, 3573111.20; 489828.18,
3573087.11; 489796.21, 3573065.31; 489762.72, 3573045.91; 489727.90,
3573029.02; 489644.36, 3573024.70; 489560.73, 3573022.61; 489477.08,
3573022.74; 489393.46, 3573025.10; 489359.85, 3573040.41; 489327.69,
3573058.58; 489297.23, 3573079.47; 489268.70, 3573102.92; 489242.31,
3573128.77; 489218.27, 3573156.80; 489196.75, 3573186.82; 489177.92,
3573218.59; 489161.92, 3573251.88; 489148.87, 3573286.44; 489138.87,
3573321.99; 489085.29, 3573601.84; 489092.79, 3573641.38; 489103.20,
3573680.27; 489116.45, 3573718.27; 489132.48, 3573755.19; 489151.20,
3573790.83; 489172.50, 3573824.98; 489196.26, 3573857.47; 489214.53,
3573880.49; 489235.17, 3573901.42; 489257.94, 3573920.01; 489282.57,
3573936.04; 489308.78, 3573949.34; 489336.26, 3573959.75; 489364.71,
3573967.15; 489393.78, 3573971.44; 489423.15, 3573972.59; 489452.47,
3573970.58; 489453.58, 3573970.39; 489507.35, 3573975.17; 489561.29,
3573977.32; 489615.28, 3573976.84; 489669.17, 3573973.72; 489722.85,
3573967.97.
(B) Note: Map of Unit FFS-5 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 6757]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.004
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 6758]]
(iii) Unit FFS-6--Berkeley County, South Carolina. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Cainhoy, South Carolina.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 17N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 611278.81, 3648848.98; 613513.07, 3649951.18; 613527.98,
3649895.75; 613535.82, 3649838.89; 613536.47, 3649781.49; 613529.62,
3649718.85; 613516.29, 3649668.71; 613495.76, 3649615.10; 613468.68,
3649564.49; 613435.47, 3649517.67; 613416.73, 3649495.91; 613396.66,
3649475.38; 613352.85, 3649438.29; 613304.74, 3649406.98; 613265.68,
3649387.26; 613198.69, 3649363.59; 613142.44, 3649352.20; 613087.44,
3649348.04; 613094.83, 3649293.89; 613095.48, 3649236.49; 613088.93,
3649179.46; 613075.29, 3649123.71; 613054.77, 3649070.10; 613042.02,
3649044.36; 613027.69, 3649019.49; 612994.47, 3648972.67; 612955.66,
3648930.38; 612911.85, 3648893.29; 612888.28, 3648876.88; 612863.74,
3648861.98; 612812.08, 3648836.95; 609500.97, 3647503.91; 609474.07,
3647493.88; 609446.58, 3647485.56; 609418.63, 3647478.99; 609390.32,
3647474.18; 609361.76, 3647471.16; 609333.08, 3647469.94; 609304.37,
3647470.53; 609275.75, 3647472.91; 609247.34, 3647477.09; 609219.25,
3647483.04; 609191.59, 3647490.74; 609164.46, 3647500.17; 609137.99,
3647511.28; 609112.26, 3647524.03; 609087.38, 3647538.37; 609063.45,
3647554.25; 609040.57, 3647571.59; 609018.82, 3647590.34; 608998.29,
3647610.42; 608979.07, 3647631.75; 608961.22, 3647654.24; 608944.81,
3647677.81; 608929.92, 3647702.36; 608916.60, 3647727.80; 608904.91,
3647754.02; 608894.88, 3647780.93; 608886.56, 3647808.42; 608879.99,
3647836.37; 608875.18, 3647864.68; 608872.16, 3647893.23; 608870.94,
3647921.92; 608871.52, 3647950.63; 608873.91, 3647979.25; 608878.08,
3648007.66; 608884.04, 3648035.75; 608891.74, 3648063.41; 608901.17,
3648090.53; 608912.28, 3648117.01; 608925.03, 3648142.74; 608939.37,
3648167.62; 608955.25, 3648191.54; 608972.59, 3648214.43; 608991.34,
3648236.18; 609011.42, 3648256.70; 609032.74, 3648275.93; 609055.24,
3648293.78; 609078.81, 3648310.18; 609103.36, 3648325.08; 612197.25,
3649979.02; 612248.91, 3650004.05; 612275.81, 3650014.08; 612331.23,
3650028.99; 612359.55, 3650033.80; 612416.80, 3650038.06; 612474.12,
3650035.11; 612502.53, 3650030.94; 612558.29, 3650017.30; 612611.90,
3649996.77; 612655.36, 3649973.81; 612691.29, 3650045.52; 612724.50,
3650092.34; 612743.24, 3650114.09; 612784.64, 3650153.86; 612830.69,
3650188.12; 612855.24, 3650203.02; 612906.90, 3650228.05; 612961.29,
3650246.41; 613025.74, 3650257.06; 613074.79, 3650262.06; 613103.50,
3650261.49; 613160.52, 3650254.94; 613216.28, 3650241.30; 613269.89,
3650220.78; 613295.63, 3650208.03; 613320.51, 3650193.70; 613367.33,
3650160.49; 613409.62, 3650121.67; 613428.85, 3650100.35; 613463.11,
3650054.30; 613491.34, 3650004.31; 613513.07, 3649951.18.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-6 is provided at paragraph
(7)(iv)(B) of this entry.
(iv) Unit FFS-7--Charleston County, South Carolina. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map, Santee, South Carolina.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 17N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 648576.17, 3668543.24; 648579.86, 3668086.10; 648551.15,
3668086.77; 648522.54, 3668089.24; 648494.14, 3668093.50; 648466.06,
3668099.54; 648438.42, 3668107.33; 648411.32, 3668116.84; 648384.87,
3668128.03; 648359.18, 3668140.86; 648334.34, 3668155.28; 648310.46,
3668171.23; 648287.62, 3668188.65; 648265.93, 3668207.47; 648245.46,
3668227.61; 648226.29, 3668249.00; 648208.50, 3668271.55; 648192.17,
3668295.17; 648177.35, 3668319.77; 648164.11, 3668345.25; 648152.49,
3668371.52; 648142.54, 3668398.46; 648134.31, 3668425.97; 648127.82,
3668453.95; 648123.09, 3668482.28; 648120.16, 3668510.84; 648119.03,
3668539.54; 648119.70, 3668568.25; 648122.17, 3668596.86; 648126.43,
3668625.26; 648132.47, 3668653.34; 648140.26, 3668680.98; 648149.77,
3668708.08; 648160.96, 3668734.53; 648173.79, 3668760.22; 648188.21,
3668785.06; 648204.16, 3668808.94; 648221.58, 3668831.78; 648240.40,
3668853.47; 648260.54, 3668873.94; 648281.93, 3668893.11; 648304.48,
3668910.89; 648328.10, 3668927.23; 648352.70, 3668942.05; 648378.18,
3668955.29; 648404.45, 3668966.91; 648431.39, 3668976.86; 648458.90,
3668985.09; 648486.88, 3668991.58; 648515.21, 3668996.30; 648543.77,
3668999.24; 648572.47, 3669000.37; 648601.18, 3668999.70; 648629.80,
3668997.23; 648658.20, 3668992.97; 648686.27, 3668986.93; 648713.92,
3668979.14; 648741.02, 3668969.63; 648767.46, 3668958.44; 648793.16,
3668945.61; 648818.00, 3668931.19; 648841.88, 3668915.24; 648864.71,
3668897.82; 648886.41, 3668879.00; 648906.88, 3668858.86; 648926.04,
3668837.47; 648943.83, 3668814.92; 648960.16, 3668791.30; 648974.98,
3668766.70; 648988.23, 3668741.22; 648999.85, 3668714.96; 649009.79,
3668688.01; 649018.03, 3668660.50; 649024.52, 3668632.53; 649029.24,
3668604.20; 649032.17, 3668575.63; 649033.31, 3668546.93; 649032.64,
3668518.22; 649030.17, 3668489.61; 649025.90, 3668461.21; 649019.86,
3668433.13; 649012.08, 3668405.49; 649002.57, 3668378.39; 648991.37,
3668351.94; 648978.54, 3668326.25; 648964.12, 3668301.41; 648948.17,
3668277.53; 648930.76, 3668254.69; 648911.94, 3668233.00; 648891.79,
3668212.53; 648870.41, 3668193.36; 648847.86, 3668175.58; 648824.23,
3668159.24; 648799.63, 3668144.42; 648774.15, 3668131.18; 648747.89,
3668119.56; 648720.94, 3668109.62; 648693.43, 3668101.38; 648665.46,
3668094.89; 648637.13, 3668090.17; 648608.56, 3668087.23; 648579.86,
3668086.10.
(B) Note: Map of Units FFS-6 and FFS-7 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 6759]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.005
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 6760]]
Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander (Ambystoma bishopi)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Calhoun, Holmes,
Jackson, Santa Rosa, Walton, and Washington Counties in Florida; and
Baker and Miller Counties in Georgia on the maps below.
(2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the
reticulated flatwoods salamander are the habitat components that
provide:
(i) Breeding habitat. Small (generally less than 1 to 10 ac (less
than 0.4 to 4.0 ha)), acidic, depressional standing bodies of
freshwater (wetlands) that:
(A) Are seasonally flooded by rainfall in late fall or early winter
and dry in late spring or early summer;
(B) Are geographically isolated from other water bodies;
(C) Occur within pine flatwoods-savanna communities;
(D) Are dominated by grasses and grass-like species in the ground
layer and overstories of pond-cypress, blackgum, and slash pine;
(E) Have a relatively open canopy, necessary to maintain the
herbaceous component that serves as cover for flatwoods salamander
larvae and their aquatic invertebrate prey; and
(F) Typically have a burrowing crayfish fauna, but, due to periodic
drying, the breeding ponds typically lack large, predatory fish (for
example, Lepomis (sunfish), Micropterus (bass), Amia calva (bowfin)).
(ii) Non-breeding habitat. Upland pine flatwoods-savanna habitat
that is open, mesic woodland maintained by frequent fires and that:
(A) Is within 1,500 ft (457 m) of adjacent and accessible breeding
ponds;
(B) Contains crayfish burrows or other underground habitat that the
flatwoods salamander depends upon for food, shelter, and protection
from the elements and predation;
(C) Has an organic hardpan in the soil profile, which inhibits
subsurface water penetration and typically results in moist soils with
water often at or near the surface under normal conditions; and
(D) Often has wiregrasses as the dominant grasses in the abundant
herbaceous ground cover, which supports the rich herbivorous
invertebrates that serve as a food source for the reticulated flatwoods
salamander.
(iii) Dispersal habitat. Upland habitat areas between nonbreeding
and breeding habitat that allows for salamander movement between such
sites and that is characterized by:
(A) A mix of vegetation types representing a transition between
wetland and upland vegetation (ecotone);
(B) An open canopy and abundant native herbaceous species;
(C) Moist soils as described in paragraph (2)(ii); and
(D) Subsurface structure, such as deep litter cover or burrows that
provide shelter for salamanders during seasonal movements.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were
created on a base of USGS 7.5' quadrangles, and critical habitat units
were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat for the reticulated
flatwoods salamander follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 6761]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.006
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 6762]]
(6) Reticulated flatwood salamander--Calhoun, Holmes, Jackson,
Santa Rosa, Walton and Washington Counties, Florida.
(i) Unit RFS-1--Santa Rosa County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangle map Garcon Point, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates, (E, N): 492983.94, 3372029.94;
493099.21, 3373387.45; 493154.87, 3373453.03; 493198.40, 3373490.44;
493271.61, 3373535.60; 493351.98, 3373566.25; 493436.67, 3373581.30;
493522.69, 3373580.20; 493551.12, 3373576.25; 493606.97, 3373563.02;
493686.54, 3373530.34; 493735.56, 3373500.50; 493801.14, 3373444.83;
493838.55, 3373401.30; 493870.20, 3373353.43; 493905.84, 3373275.14;
493921.15, 3373219.82; 493930.85, 3373134.35; 493928.32, 3373077.01;
493918.62, 3373020.45; 493901.91, 3372965.54; 492974.90, 3370886.40;
492965.68, 3370859.21; 492954.77, 3370832.65; 492942.22, 3370806.83;
492928.07, 3370781.84; 492912.38, 3370757.80; 492895.22, 3370734.79;
492876.64, 3370712.90; 492856.72, 3370692.22; 492835.54, 3370672.83;
492813.19, 3370654.81; 492789.75, 3370638.23; 492765.32, 3370623.16;
492739.98, 3370609.64; 492713.85, 3370597.75; 492687.03, 3370587.52;
492659.61, 3370578.99; 492631.71, 3370572.21; 492603.45, 3370567.18;
492574.92, 3370563.95; 492546.24, 3370562.51; 492517.54, 3370562.87;
492488.91, 3370565.04; 492460.47, 3370568.99; 492432.34, 3370574.73;
492404.62, 3370582.22; 492377.43, 3370591.44; 492350.87, 3370602.35;
492320.06, 3370618.11; 492291.54, 3370614.88; 492262.86, 3370613.44;
492234.15, 3370613.80; 492205.52, 3370615.97; 492177.09, 3370619.93;
492148.96, 3370625.66; 492121.24, 3370633.16; 492094.05, 3370642.37;
492067.49, 3370653.28; 492041.67, 3370665.83; 492016.69, 3370679.98;
491992.64, 3370695.67; 491969.63, 3370712.84; 491947.74, 3370731.42;
491927.07, 3370751.34; 491907.68, 3370772.52; 491889.66, 3370794.87;
491873.08, 3370818.31; 491858.01, 3370842.75; 491850.37, 3370857.07;
491865.61, 3370901.72; 491918.43, 3370965.16; 491965.55, 3371021.75;
492011.53, 3371083.74; 492053.38, 3371140.16; 492103.93, 3371212.08;
492141.72, 3371264.53; 492176.37, 3371309.64; 492207.14, 3371351.35;
492243.74, 3371397.83; 492283.27, 3371453.23; 492331.51, 3371520.83;
493069.37, 3373338.43; 493099.21, 3373387.45.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-1 is provided at paragraph
(6)(v)(B) of this entry.
(ii) Unit RFS-2, Subunit A--Santa Rosa County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Harold, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, North American
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates, (E, N): 501542.20, 3392876.13;
501578.50, 3392420.55; 501549.82, 3392419.17; 501521.11, 3392419.59;
501492.49, 3392421.82; 501464.06, 3392425.84; 501435.94, 392431.63;
501408.24, 3392439.18; 501381.07, 3392448.45; 501354.53, 3392459.42;
501328.74, 3392472.02; 501303.78, 3392486.22; 501279.77, 3392501.96;
501256.80, 392519.18; 501234.95, 3392537.80; 501214.31, 3392557.76;
501194.97, 3392578.98; 501176.99, 3392601.37; 501160.46, 3392624.84;
501145.44, 3392649.31; 501131.98, 392674.67; 501120.14, 3392700.83;
501109.96, 3392727.67; 501101.49, 3392755.11; 501094.76, 3392783.02;
501089.80, 3392811.30; 501086.62, 3392839.83; 501085.24, 392868.51;
501085.25, 3392868.93; 501085.66, 3392897.21; 501086.27, 3392904.98;
501087.89, 3392925.84; 501091.91, 3392954.27; 501097.70, 3392982.39;
501105.25, 393010.09; 501114.52, 3393037.26; 501125.49, 3393063.80;
501138.09, 3393089.59; 501152.29, 3393114.54; 501168.03, 3393138.56;
501185.25, 3393161.53; 501203.87, 393183.38; 501223.83, 3393204.02;
501245.05, 3393223.36; 501267.44, 3393241.33; 501290.91, 3393257.87;
501315.38, 3393272.89; 501340.74, 3393286.35; 501366.90, 393298.19;
501393.74, 3393308.36; 501421.18, 3393316.83; 501449.09, 3393323.56;
501477.37, 3393328.53; 501505.90, 3393331.70; 501534.58, 3393333.08;
501563.29, 393332.66; 501584.95, 3393330.98; 501591.91, 3393330.44;
501613.98, 3393327.32; 501620.34, 3393326.42; 501648.46, 3393320.62;
501676.16, 3393313.07; 501703.33, 393303.80; 501729.87, 3393292.84;
501755.66, 3393280.23; 501780.61, 3393266.03; 501804.63, 3393250.29;
501827.60, 3393233.08; 501849.45, 3393214.45; 501870.09, 393194.49;
501889.43, 3393173.27; 501907.41, 3393150.89; 501923.94, 3393127.41;
501938.96, 3393102.95; 501952.42, 3393077.59; 501964.26, 3393051.43;
501974.44, 393024.58; 501982.91, 3392997.15; 501989.64, 3392969.24;
501994.60, 3392940.96; 501997.78, 3392912.43; 501999.16, 3392883.75;
501998.73, 3392855.04; 501996.51, 392826.42; 501992.49, 3392797.99;
501986.70, 3392769.87; 501979.15, 3392742.17; 501969.87, 3392715.00;
501958.91, 3392688.46; 501946.31, 3392662.66; 501932.11, 392637.71;
501916.37, 3392613.70; 501899.15, 3392590.72; 501880.52, 3392568.87;
501860.56, 3392548.24; 501839.35, 3392528.89; 501816.96, 3392510.92;
501793.48, 392494.39; 501769.02, 3392479.36; 501743.66, 3392465.90;
501717.50, 3392454.06; 501690.66, 3392443.89; 501663.22, 3392435.42;
501635.31, 3392428.69; 501607.03, 3392423.73; 501578.50, 3392420.55.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-2, Subunit A is provided at
paragraph (6)(v)(B) of this entry.
(iii) Unit RFS-2, Subunit B--Santa Rosa County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Floridale, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 518978.93, 3390847.46; 519015.23, 3390391.88; 518986.55,
3390390.50; 518957.84, 3390390.92; 518929.22, 3390393.14; 518900.79,
3390397.16; 518872.67, 390402.96; 518844.97, 3390410.51; 518817.80,
3390419.78; 518791.26, 3390430.74; 518765.46, 3390443.35; 518740.51,
3390457.55; 518716.50, 3390473.29; 518693.52, 3390490.50; 518671.67,
3390509.13; 518651.04, 3390529.09; 518631.69, 3390550.31; 518613.72,
3390572.70; 518597.19, 3390596.17; 518582.16, 3390620.64; 518568.70,
3390646.00; 518556.86, 3390672.15; 518546.69, 3390699.00; 518538.22,
3390726.43; 518531.49, 3390754.34; 518526.53, 3390782.62; 518523.35,
3390811.16; 518521.97, 3390839.83; 518522.39, 3390868.54; 518524.62,
3390897.17; 518528.63, 3390925.59; 518534.43, 3390953.71; 518541.98,
3390981.41; 518551.25, 3391008.59; 518562.21, 3391035.12; 518574.82,
3391060.92; 518589.02, 3391085.87; 518604.76, 3391109.88; 518621.98,
3391132.86; 518640.60, 3391154.71; 518660.56, 3391175.35; 518681.78,
3391194.69; 518704.17, 3391212.66; 518727.64, 3391229.19; 518752.11,
3391244.22; 518777.47, 3391257.68; 518803.62, 3391269.52; 518830.47,
3391279.69; 518857.91, 3391288.16; 518885.82, 3391294.89; 518914.10,
3391299.86; 518942.63, 3391303.03; 518971.31, 3391304.41; 519000.02,
3391303.99; 519028.64, 3391301.77; 519057.07, 3391297.75; 519085.19,
3391291.95; 519112.89, 3391284.40; 519140.06, 3391275.13; 519166.60,
3391264.17; 519192.39, 3391251.56; 519217.35, 3391237.36; 519241.36,
3391221.62; 519264.33, 3391204.41; 519286.18, 3391185.78; 519306.82,
3391165.82; 519326.16, 3391144.60; 519344.14, 3391122.21; 519360.67,
3391098.74; 519375.69, 3391074.28; 519389.16, 3391048.92; 519401.00,
3391022.77; 519410.33, 3390998.13; 519411.17, 3390995.92; 519419.64,
3390968.48;
[[Page 6763]]
519426.37, 3390940.57; 519431.34, 3390912.29; 519434.51, 3390883.76;
519435.89, 3390855.08; 519435.47, 3390826.37; 519433.25, 3390797.7493;
519429.2274, 3390769.3210; 519423.4325, 3390741.2012; 519415.8831,
3390713.50; 519406.61, 3390686.33; 519395.65, 3390659.79; 519383.04,
3390634.00; 519368.84, 3390609.04; 519353.10, 3390585.03; 519335.89,
3390562.06; 519317.26, 3390540.21; 519297.30, 3390519.57; 519276.08,
3390500.23; 519253.69, 3390482.25; 519230.22, 3390465.72; 519205.75,
3390450.70; 519180.39, 3390437.24; 519154.24, 3390425.40; 519127.39,
3390415.22; 519099.96, 3390406.75; 519072.05, 3390400.02; 519043.77,
3390395.06; 519025.17, 3390392.99; 519015.23, 3390391.88.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-2, Subunit B is provided at
paragraph (6)(v)(B) of this entry.
(iv) Unit RFS-3, Subunit A--Santa Rosa County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Holley, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 503177.78, 3363967.21; 503665.03, 3364056.93; 503673.05,
3364029.36; 503679.32, 3364001.35; 503683.82, 3363972.99; 503686.53,
3363944.41; 503687.44, 3363915.71; 503694.98, 3363896.36; 503703.23,
3363884.01; 503713.36, 3363875.67; 503720.87, 3363866.60; 503726.39,
3363857.48; 503733.34, 3363843.78; 503741.25, 3363818.20; 503752.72,
3363782.15; 503757.95, 3363757.83; 503766.30, 3363741.51; 503653.07,
3363742.06; 503644.01, 3363721.11; 503630.98, 3363695.52; 503615.44,
3363669.75; 503614.55, 3363724.18; 503603.43, 3363777.35; 503601.27,
3363799.83; 503594.64, 3363834.69; 503563.00, 3363831.09; 503563.97,
3363824.67; 503558.81, 3363820.93; 503559.46, 3363811.37; 503555.68,
3363800.73; 503543.49, 3363787.96; 503527.75, 3363771.89; 503514.02,
3363772.76; 503464.40, 3363773.57; 503448.85, 3363749.85; 503448.44,
3363558.27; 503320.62, 3363559.79; 503273.43, 3363560.71; 503273.49,
3363572.75; 503279.14, 3363573.95; 503279.03, 3363592.72; 503284.42,
3363598.55; 503277.70, 3363622.86; 503272.12, 3363658.96; 503257.00,
3363659.53; 503220.26, 3363657.70; 503211.46, 3363656.94; 503211.34,
3363632.86; 503198.99, 3363600.69; 503189.65, 3363605.42; 503175.37,
3363661.31; 503174.55, 3363690.00; 503175.30, 3363735.30; 503170.12,
3363757.64; 503161.91, 3363768.67; 503127.37, 3363773.12; 503100.70,
3363791.93; 503033.44, 3363790.29; 502978.97, 3363827.84; 502954.55,
3363827.72; 502938.01, 3363827.31; 502928.95, 3363818.51; 502929.56,
3363685.06; 502929.74, 3363569.45; 502821.80, 3363570.13; 502821.27,
3363591.92; 502814.36, 3363603.64; 502789.75, 3363608.33; 502751.22,
3363613.34; 502704.61, 3363624.01; 502670.48, 3363639.13; 502640.35,
3363788.37; 502630.38, 3363844.28; 502624.76, 3363884.45; 502620.15,
3363937.85; 502612.79, 3363995.15; 502605.87, 3364010.90; 502632.10,
3364030.43; 502667.63, 3364049.11; 502682.24, 3364047.48; 502713.23,
3364052.86; 502771.52, 3364051.63; 502794.68, 3364052.20; 502805.45,
3364083.69; 502816.85, 3364110.04; 502829.87, 3364135.63; 502844.48,
3364160.34; 502860.61, 3364184.09; 502878.20, 3364206.79; 502897.18,
3364228.33; 502917.48, 3364248.63; 502939.01, 3364267.63; 502961.69,
3364285.23; 502985.43, 3364301.38; 503010.14, 3364316.00; 503035.71,
3364329.04; 503062.06, 3364340.45; 503089.07, 3364350.18; 503116.64,
3364358.20; 503144.65, 3364364.47; 503173.01, 3364368.97; 503201.59,
3364371.69; 503230.29, 3364372.60; 503258.99, 3364371.70; 503287.57,
3364369.01; 503315.93, 3364364.53; 503343.95, 3364358.27; 503371.52,
3364350.27; 503398.54, 3364340.55; 503424.89, 3364329.16; 503450.47,
3364316.13; 503475.19, 3364301.52; 503498.94, 3364285.39; 503521.63,
3364267.80; 503543.18, 3364248.82; 503563.48, 3364228.53; 503582.48,
3364207.00; 503600.08, 3364184.32; 503616.23, 3364160.57; 503630.85,
3364135.87; 503643.89, 3364110.29; 503655.30, 3364083.94; 503665.03,
3364056.93.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-3, Subunit A is provided at
paragraph (6)(v)(B) of this entry.
(v) Unit RFS-3, Subunit B--Santa Rosa County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Holley, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates,
(E, N): 507814.78, 3364090.74; 508038.93, 3364260.63; 508159.63,
3364258.28; 508158.08, 3364132.67; 508156.37, 3364018.27; 508155.42,
3363957.25; 508106.06, 3363958.06; 508068.35, 3363958.68; 508035.07,
3363959.24; 507887.21, 3363961.45; 507885.38, 3363855.42; 507685.15,
3363855.35; 507684.90, 3363837.37; 507612.21, 3363836.12; 507612.77,
3363907.73; 507612.90, 3363927.61; 507638.84, 3363928.05; 507638.99,
3363940.21; 507583.59, 3364018.73; 507491.86, 3364016.60; 507493.27,
3364096.55; 507471.91, 3364096.05; 507455.12, 3364095.65; 507457.47,
3364243.92; 507529.64, 3364243.19; 507566.34, 3364270.07; 507830.20,
3364271.25; 507890.35, 3364271.37; 507890.09, 3364262.80; 507967.94,
3364261.67; 508038.93, 3364260.63.
(B) Note: Map of Units RFS-1, RFS-2, and RFS-3 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 6764]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.007
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 6765]]
(vi) Unit RFS-6, Subunit A--Walton County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Bruce, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 601647.75, 3373576.77; 601493.33, 3374109.03; 601522.04,
3374108.60; 601550.67, 3374106.38; 601579.10, 3374102.36; 601607.23,
3374096.56; 601634.93, 3374089.01; 601662.11, 3374079.74; 601688.65,
3374068.77; 601714.44, 3374056.17; 601739.40, 3374041.96; 601763.41,
3374026.22; 601786.39, 3374009.00; 601808.25, 3373990.37; 601828.89,
3373970.41; 601848.23, 3373949.19; 601866.21, 3373926.80; 601882.74,
3373903.32; 601897.76, 3373878.85; 601911.23, 3373853.49; 601923.07,
3373827.33; 601933.24, 3373800.48; 601941.71, 3373773.04; 601948.44,
3373745.13; 601953.40, 3373716.84; 601956.58, 3373688.31; 601957.96,
3373659.62; 601957.54, 3373630.91; 601955.31, 3373602.29; 601951.29,
3373573.85; 601945.50, 3373545.73; 601937.95, 3373518.03; 601932.81,
3373498.30; 602077.97, 3373412.75; 602148.71, 3373370.38; 602189.04,
3373346.29; 602226.02, 3373324.08; 602242.81, 3373314.59; 602251.57,
3373308.87; 602249.73, 3373302.87; 602248.52, 3373298.22; 602244.07,
3373290.84; 602232.30, 3373285.25; 602226.49, 3373279.16; 602219.36,
3373273.03; 602212.40, 3373260.30; 602203.50, 3373245.54; 602189.89,
3373207.54; 602185.07, 3373188.25; 602182.00, 3373178.92; 602174.92,
3373170.82; 602167.16, 3373163.35; 602161.52, 3373150.66; 602159.44,
3373128.14; 602152.20, 3373073.77; 602147.72, 3373041.28; 602068.26,
3373014.83; 602046.87, 3372996.45; 602018.93, 3372975.27; 601977.95,
3372972.42; 601920.70, 3372984.20; 601893.12, 3373001.35; 601867.36,
3373025.15; 601844.26, 3373048.36; 601816.50, 3373072.78; 601799.99,
3373071.04; 601789.68, 3373059.55; 601764.95, 3373042.41; 601751.13,
3373012.99; 601725.10, 3372994.49; 601700.34, 3373005.10; 601680.55,
3373028.40; 601659.92, 3373058.94; 601630.17, 3373083.30; 601595.72,
3373083.76; 601568.63, 3373081.76; 601562.85, 3373153.48; 601546.32,
3373152.40; 601512.87, 3373139.67; 601482.57, 3373133.62; 601457.54,
3373128.37; 601443.06, 3373124.70; 601441.20, 3373198.67; 601422.79,
3373201.67; 601394.66, 3373207.46; 601366.96, 3373215.01; 601339.78,
3373224.29; 601313.25, 3373235.25; 601287.45, 3373247.86; 601262.49,
3373262.06; 601238.48, 3373277.81; 601215.50, 3373295.02; 601193.65,
3373313.65; 601173.01, 3373333.62; 601153.66, 3373354.84; 601135.69,
3373377.23; 601119.15, 3373400.70; 601104.13, 3373425.17; 601090.67,
3373450.54; 601078.83, 3373476.70; 601068.65, 3373503.55; 601060.18,
3373530.98; 601053.45, 3373558.90; 601048.49, 3373587.18; 601045.31,
3373615.72; 601043.93, 3373644.40; 601044.35, 3373673.11; 601046.58,
3373701.74; 601050.60, 3373730.17; 601056.39, 3373758.30; 601063.95,
3373786.00; 601073.22, 3373813.17; 601084.18, 3373839.71; 601096.79,
3373865.51; 601111.00, 3373890.47; 601126.74, 3373914.48; 601143.96,
3373937.46; 601162.58, 3373959.31; 601182.55, 3373979.95; 601203.77,
3373999.30; 601226.16, 3374017.27; 601249.64, 3374033.81; 601274.11,
3374048.83; 601299.47, 3374062.29; 601325.63, 3374074.13; 601352.48,
3374084.31; 601379.92, 3374092.78; 601407.83, 3374099.51; 601436.11,
3374104.47; 601464.65, 3374107.65; 601493.33, 3374109.03.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-6, Subunit A is provided at
paragraph (6)(ix)(B) of this entry.
(vii) Unit RFS-6, Subunit B--Washington County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Bruce, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 607444.16, 3365585.74; 607435.59, 3366042.75; 607464.30,
3366042.38; 607492.93, 3366040.22; 607521.37, 3366036.26; 607549.51,
3366030.52; 607577.23, 3366023.03; 607604.42, 3366013.81; 607630.98,
3366002.90; 607656.81, 3365990.35; 607681.79, 3365976.20; 607705.84,
3365960.50; 607728.86, 3365943.33; 607750.75, 3365924.75; 607771.43,
3365904.83; 607790.82, 3365883.65; 607808.84, 3365861.30; 607825.42,
3365837.85; 607840.50, 3365813.42; 607854.02, 3365788.08; 607865.91,
3365761.94; 607876.14, 3365735.11; 607884.67, 3365707.70; 607891.46,
3365679.79; 607896.48, 3365651.52; 607899.72, 3365622.99; 607901.16,
3365594.31; 607900.79, 3365565.60; 607898.63, 3365536.97; 607894.67,
3365508.53; 607888.93, 3365480.39; 607881.44, 3365452.67; 607872.22,
3365425.48; 607861.31, 3365398.91; 607848.76, 3365373.09; 607834.61,
3365348.10; 607818.91, 3365324.06; 607801.74, 3365301.04; 607783.16,
3365279.15; 607763.24, 3365258.47; 607742.06, 3365239.08; 607719.71,
3365221.06; 607696.26, 3365204.48; 607671.83, 3365189.40; 607646.49,
3365175.88; 607620.36, 3365163.99; 607593.53, 3365153.76; 607566.11,
3365145.23; 607538.21, 3365138.44; 607509.93, 3365133.42; 607481.40,
3365130.18; 607452.72, 3365128.74; 607424.01, 3365129.11; 607395.38,
3365131.27; 607366.94, 3365135.23; 607338.80, 3365140.97; 607311.08,
3365148.46; 607283.89, 3365157.68; 607257.33, 3365168.59; 607231.50,
3365181.14; 607206.52, 3365195.29; 607182.47, 3365210.99; 607159.45,
3365228.16; 607137.56, 3365246.74; 607116.88, 3365266.66; 607097.49,
3365287.84; 607079.47, 3365310.19; 607062.89, 3365333.64; 607047.81,
3365358.07; 607034.30, 3365383.41; 607022.40, 3365409.54; 607012.17,
3365436.37; 607003.64, 3365463.79; 606996.85, 3365491.69; 606991.83,
3365519.97; 606988.59, 3365548.50; 606987.15, 3365577.18; 606987.52,
3365605.89; 606989.68, 3365634.52; 606993.64, 3365662.96; 606999.38,
3365691.10; 607006.87, 3365718.82; 607016.09, 3365746.01; 607027.00,
3365772.57; 607039.55, 3365798.40; 607053.70, 3365823.38; 607069.40,
3365847.43; 607086.57, 3365870.45; 607105.15, 3365892.34; 607125.07,
3365913.02; 607146.25, 3365932.41; 607168.60, 3365950.43; 607192.05,
3365967.01; 607216.48, 3365982.09; 607241.82, 3365995.60; 607267.95,
3366007.50; 607294.78, 3366017.73; 607322.20, 3366026.26; 607350.10,
3366033.05; 607378.38, 3366038.07; 607406.91, 3366041.31; 607435.59,
3366042.75.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-6, Subunit B is provided at
paragraph (6)(ix)(B) of this entry.
(viii) Unit RFS-7, Subunit A--Holmes County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Bonifay, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 630429.91, 3415116.39; 630422.24, 3415573.43; 630450.95,
3415573.01; 630479.58, 3415570.79; 630508.01, 3415566.77; 630536.14,
3415560.98; 630563.84, 3415553.43; 630591.02, 3415544.16; 630617.56,
3415533.20; 630643.36, 3415520.59; 630668.32, 3415506.39; 630692.34,
3415490.65; 630715.32, 3415473.44; 630737.18, 3415454.81; 630757.82,
3415434.85; 630777.17, 3415413.63; 630795.15, 3415391.24; 630811.68,
3415367.76; 630826.71, 3415343.29; 630840.18, 3415317.93; 630852.02,
3415291.77; 630862.20, 3415264.92; 630870.67, 3415237.48; 630877.41,
3415209.57; 630882.38, 3415181.28; 630885.56, 3415152.74; 630886.94,
3415124.06; 630886.52, 3415095.35; 630884.30, 3415066.72; 630880.28,
3415038.28; 630874.49, 3415010.16; 630866.94, 3414982.45; 630857.67,
3414955.27; 630846.71, 3414928.73; 630834.11, 3414902.93; 630819.91,
3414877.97; 630804.17, 3414853.95; 630786.95, 3414830.97; 630768.32,
3414809.11; 630748.36, 3414788.47; 630727.15, 3414769.12; 630704.75,
3414751.14;
[[Page 6766]]
630681.28, 3414734.60; 630656.81, 3414719.57; 630631.45, 3414706.11;
630605.29, 3414694.26; 630578.44, 3414684.08; 630551.00, 3414675.61;
630523.09, 3414668.88; 630494.81, 3414663.91; 630466.27, 3414660.73;
630437.59, 3414659.34; 630408.87, 3414659.76; 630380.24, 3414661.99;
630351.81, 3414666.00; 630323.69, 3414671.79; 630295.98, 3414679.34;
630268.80, 3414688.61; 630242.26, 3414699.58; 630216.46, 3414712.18;
630191.50, 3414726.38; 630167.49, 3414742.12; 630144.51, 3414759.34;
630122.65, 3414777.97; 630102.01, 3414797.93; 630082.66, 3414819.15;
630064.68, 3414841.54; 630048.14, 3414865.01; 630033.11, 3414889.48;
630019.65, 3414914.85; 630007.80, 3414941.01; 629997.63, 3414967.86;
629989.15, 3414995.29; 629982.42, 3415023.21; 629977.45, 3415051.49;
629974.27, 3415080.03; 629972.89, 3415108.72; 629973.31, 3415137.43;
629975.53, 3415166.06; 629979.54, 3415194.49; 629985.34, 3415222.62;
629992.88, 3415250.32; 630002.16, 3415277.50; 630013.12, 3415304.04;
630025.72, 3415329.85; 630039.92, 3415354.81; 630055.66, 3415378.82;
630072.88, 3415401.81; 630091.50, 3415423.66; 630111.46, 3415444.31;
630132.68, 3415463.65; 630155.07, 3415481.63; 630178.55, 3415498.17;
630203.02, 3415513.20; 630228.38, 3415526.67; 630254.54, 3415538.51;
630281.39, 3415548.69; 630308.82, 3415557.16; 630336.74, 3415563.90;
630365.02, 3415568.87; 630393.56, 3415572.05; 630422.24, 3415573.43.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-7, Subunit A is provided at
paragraph (6)(ix)(B) of this entry.
(ix) Unit RFS-7, Subunit B--Washington County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 quadrangle map Millers Ferry, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 618603.41, 3387429.45; 618699.68, 3387966.18; 618708.26,
3387969.49; 618723.71, 3387970.50; 618726.33, 3387965.00; 618725.78,
3387937.80; 618728.76, 3387918.09; 618732.40, 3387896.55; 618738.22,
3387886.81; 618755.97, 3387870.57; 618776.73, 3387857.50; 618803.06,
3387844.57; 618839.32, 3387830.66; 618872.53, 3387815.43; 618904.43,
3387802.63; 618918.85, 3387795.58; 618926.43, 3387789.59; 618930.96,
3387781.67; 618931.79, 3387748.94; 618930.13, 3387716.76; 618932.43,
3387674.79; 618932.53, 3387646.37; 618934.03, 3387611.79; 618948.87,
3387588.07; 618962.97, 3387569.26; 618980.28, 3387545.60; 618995.92,
3387515.09; 619007.01, 3387492.50; 619018.24, 3387464.98; 619025.65,
3387441.06; 619035.64, 3387413.50; 619042.95, 3387393.91; 619052.14,
3387373.13; 619059.11, 3387348.17; 619055.09, 3387319.74; 619049.30,
3387291.61; 619041.75, 3387263.91; 619032.48, 3387236.73; 619021.51,
3387210.19; 619008.91, 3387184.39; 618994.70, 3387159.43; 618978.96,
3387135.42; 618961.74, 3387112.44; 618943.12, 3387090.58; 618923.15,
3387069.94; 618901.93, 3387050.59; 618879.54, 3387032.62; 618856.06,
3387016.08; 618831.60, 3387001.05; 618806.23, 3386987.59; 618780.07,
3386975.75; 618753.22, 3386965.57; 618725.78, 3386957.10; 618697.87,
3386950.37; 618669.59, 3386945.41; 618641.05, 3386942.23; 618612.37,
3386940.85; 618583.65, 3386941.27; 618555.02, 3386943.49; 618526.59,
3386947.51; 618498.47, 3386953.31; 618470.76, 3386960.86; 618443.59,
3386970.13; 618417.05, 3386981.10; 618391.25, 3386993.70; 618366.29,
3387007.91; 618342.28, 3387023.65; 618319.30, 3387040.87; 618297.44,
3387059.49; 618276.80, 3387079.46; 618257.46, 3387100.68; 618239.48,
3387123.07; 618222.95, 3387146.55; 618207.92, 3387171.02; 618194.46,
3387196.38; 618182.61, 3387222.54; 618172.44, 3387249.39; 618163.97,
3387276.83; 618157.24, 3387304.75; 618152.27, 3387333.03; 618149.09,
3387361.57; 618147.71, 3387390.25; 618148.13, 3387418.97; 618150.36,
3387447.59; 618154.38, 3387476.03; 618160.17, 3387504.15; 618167.72,
3387531.86; 618177.00, 3387559.03; 618187.96, 3387585.58; 618200.57,
3387611.37; 618214.77, 3387636.33; 618230.51, 3387660.35; 618247.73,
3387683.33; 618266.36, 3387705.18; 618286.32, 3387725.82; 618307.54,
3387745.17; 618329.93, 3387763.15; 618353.41, 3387779.68; 618377.88,
3387794.71; 618403.24, 3387808.17; 618429.40, 3387820.02; 618456.25,
3387830.19; 618483.69, 3387838.66; 618511.60, 3387845.39; 618552.33,
3387867.90; 618598.24, 3387912.94; 618635.11, 3387948.48; 618647.90,
3387956.84; 618666.90, 3387964.74; 618689.14, 3387966.53; 618699.68,
3387966.18.
(B) Note: Map of Units RFS-6 and RFS-7 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 6767]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.008
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 6768]]
(x) Unit RFS-8, Subunit A--Jackson County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 quadrangle map Cottondale West, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 652825.49, 3407068.83; 652825.48, 3407068.83; 653303.68,
3406605.29; 653038.02, 3406583.61; 653039.18, 3406691.92; 653028.57,
3406721.18; 653006.55, 3406734.40; 652986.39, 3406751.60; 652981.54,
3406786.91; 652980.43, 3406830.19; 652979.67, 3406859.70; 652965.63,
3406869.19; 652941.78, 3406876.45; 652916.11, 3406877.76; 652884.59,
3406876.95; 652859.18, 3406868.42; 652831.89, 3406855.91; 652800.52,
3406849.20; 652767.02, 3406848.34; 652747.17, 3406853.74; 652732.87,
3406873.06; 652724.33, 3406898.44; 652743.83, 3406906.81; 652763.39,
3406913.22; 652758.74, 3406940.66; 652753.99, 3406972.04; 652760.86,
3407011.59; 652764.09, 3407039.23; 652761.57, 3407060.82; 652749.49,
3407070.36; 652725.65, 3407077.62; 652709.68, 3407085.09; 652701.20,
3407108.49; 652698.57, 3407134.02; 652696.09, 3407153.64; 652674.12,
3407164.89; 652656.23, 3407170.34; 652642.04, 3407185.72; 652620.14,
3407175.05; 652594.55, 3407165.80; 652583.46, 3407159.57; 652578.33,
3407152.82; 652573.28, 3407143.44; 652569.58, 3407132.77; 652565.24,
3407121.42; 652555.67, 3407107.29; 652545.45, 3407092.48; 652535.85,
3407079.68; 652526.16, 3407070.17; 652517.58, 3407069.29; 652507.43,
3407077.62; 652495.88, 3407089.23; 652486.90, 3407103.54; 652483.22,
3407117.99; 652480.80, 3407135.12; 652478.24, 3407157.53; 652480.37,
3407177.42; 652480.51, 3407197.92; 652475.78, 3407201.76; 652465.72,
3407206.79; 652458.25, 3407213.87; 652449.33, 3407226.21; 652438.05,
3407227.24; 652428.85, 3407224.36; 652417.75, 3407218.12; 652411.37,
3407208.70; 652407.64, 3407199.35; 652404.20, 3407178.77; 652402.01,
3407160.86; 652397.94, 3407138.94; 652395.00, 3407124.32; 652386.76,
3407110.23; 652373.71, 3407102.62; 652360.44, 3407103.60; 652343.53,
3407117.72; 652333.43, 3407124.07; 652322.15, 3407125.10; 652314.14,
3407127.54; 652305.95, 3407137.25; 652296.58, 3407140.97; 652287.20,
3407145.36; 652274.56, 3407147.68; 652268.06, 3407142.89; 652261.53,
3407139.41; 652255.03, 3407134.62; 652248.60, 3407127.18; 652243.50,
3407119.78; 652238.44, 3407110.39; 652237.44, 3407097.81; 652241.12,
3407083.36; 652242.82, 3407068.86; 652245.24, 3407051.73; 652244.24,
3407039.14; 652236.01, 3407024.39; 652221.05, 3407014.09; 652203.25,
3407010.99; 652190.56, 3407015.29; 652182.47, 3407021.03; 652175.50,
3407034.74; 652172.53, 3407047.22; 652173.53, 3407059.81; 652170.75,
3407065.03; 652164.64, 3407070.82; 652155.26, 3407075.21; 652145.32,
3407075.61; 652133.44, 3407073.99; 652119.02, 3407068.33; 652106.60,
3407062.06; 652100.97, 3407049.36; 652097.32, 3407036.70; 652077.38,
3407039.50; 652052.56, 3407052.08; 652042.52, 3407056.45; 652034.12,
3407074.09; 652048.98, 3407088.35; 652061.11, 3407105.85; 652085.32,
3407117.05; 652106.16, 3407130.80; 652105.19, 3407142.68; 652106.02,
3407161.87; 652112.91, 3407177.25; 652135.31, 3407181.79; 652182.83,
3407187.64; 652215.86, 3407190.47; 652257.41, 3407196.82; 652295.04,
3407201.09; 652314.35, 3407205.65; 652308.49, 3407218.63; 652292.89,
3407233.43; 652266.52, 3407254.57; 652238.70, 3407280.96; 652220.19,
3407305.61; 652212.44, 3407323.92; 652210.01, 3407341.05; 652209.77,
3407350.30; 652210.11, 3407362.87; 652213.26, 3407375.54; 652299.80,
3407383.66; 652374.80, 3407395.52; 652472.45, 3407408.60; 652594.12,
3407426.43; 652663.66, 3407439.95; 652719.80, 3407445.35; 652756.73,
3407450.93; 652822.76, 3407457.91; 652861.06, 3407462.20; 652917.52,
3407467.64; 652905.20, 3407362.30; 652901.54, 3407298.74; 652968.31,
3407276.65; 653003.40, 3407251.11; 653001.57, 3407219.33; 652994.98,
3407166.27; 653006.18, 3407142.76; 653022.74, 3407116.74; 653023.96,
3407069.17; 653009.23, 3407023.84; 653002.04, 3406994.56; 653028.78,
3406984.67; 653046.56, 3407014.22; 653069.77, 3407038.61; 653101.19,
3407052.64; 653145.98, 3407061.72; 653188.39, 3407060.16; 653209.09,
3407079.20; 653227.21, 3407095.54; 653233.05, 3407074.53; 653231.22,
3407042.75; 653237.12, 3407019.10; 653258.77, 3407001.15; 653290.87,
3406988.75; 653294.33, 3406957.10; 653292.43, 3406927.97; 653290.39,
3406904.11; 653290.87, 3406885.61; 653306.88, 3406880.74; 653330.43,
3406891.92; 653353.91, 3406905.74; 653377.80, 3406903.71; 653389.13,
3406874.91; 653395.38, 3406838.05; 653396.39, 3406798.41; 653397.07,
3406771.98; 653400.40, 3406745.62; 653413.97, 3406732.75; 653440.50,
3406730.79; 653454.01, 3406720.56; 653454.42, 3406704.70; 653438.67,
3406699.01; 653411.87, 3406711.54; 653393.20, 3406716.35; 653374.68,
3406715.88; 653358.93, 3406710.18; 653341.08, 3406683.28; 653331.11,
3406659.23; 653321.06, 3406637.81; 653308.37, 3406616.33; 653303.68,
3406605.29.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-8, Subunit A is provided at
paragraph (6)(xiv)(B) of this entry.
(xi) Unit RFS-8, Subunit B--Jackson County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Oakdale, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 674995.60, 3401690.28; 673875.85, 3402158.93; 674341.17,
3402164.28; 674675.84, 3402154.41; 674910.48, 3402162.13; 675034.90,
3402087.99; 675083.93, 3402061.49; 675233.86, 3401974.12; 675401.89,
3401877.97; 675485.18, 3401832.51; 675531.62, 3401803.30; 675583.62,
3401764.31; 675781.28, 3401546.61; 675851.43, 3401471.73; 675878.14,
3401437.38; 675932.68, 3401376.64; 675959.66, 3401349.36; 675970.87,
3401333.99; 675981.97, 3401314.44; 676115.36, 3401200.87; 676086.59,
3401161.12; 676052.69, 3401114.62; 676041.90, 3401096.49; 676016.12,
3401069.38; 675998.03, 3401051.73; 675964.86, 3401028.39; 675934.93,
3401007.79; 675918.10, 3400992.81; 675908.38, 3400984.62; 675897.49,
3400970.46; 675889.97, 3400953.73; 675879.31, 3400879.41; 675844.53,
3400893.06; 675327.40, 3401121.69; 674861.39, 3401328.81; 674684.03,
3401401.59; 674391.31, 3401530.89; 673876.29, 3401753.54; 673877.85,
3402081.41; 673875.85, 3402158.93.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-8, Subunit B is provided at
paragraph (6)(xiv)(B) of this entry.
(xii) Unit RFS-8, Subunit C--Jackson County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Cypress, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 683829.73, 3393074.70; 684023.32, 3393574.80; 684052.04,
3393574.38; 684080.68, 3393572.16; 684109.12, 3393568.14; 684137.25,
3393562.34; 684164.96, 3393554.79; 684192.15, 3393545.52; 684218.69,
3393534.55; 684244.50, 3393521.94; 684269.46, 3393507.74; 684293.49,
3393491.99; 684316.47, 3393474.77; 684338.33, 3393456.14; 684358.98,
3393436.17; 684378.33, 3393414.95; 684396.32, 3393392.55; 684412.86,
3393369.07; 684427.89, 3393344.60; 684441.36, 3393319.23; 684453.20,
3393293.06; 684463.38, 3393266.20; 684471.86, 3393238.76; 684478.59,
3393210.84; 684483.56, 3393182.55; 684486.74, 3393154.00; 684488.12,
3393125.31; 684487.70, 3393096.59; 684485.48, 3393067.96; 684481.46,
3393039.52; 684475.66, 3393011.38; 684468.11, 3392983.67; 684458.84,
3392956.49; 684447.87, 3392929.94; 684435.27, 3392904.13; 684421.06,
3392879.17;
[[Page 6769]]
684405.32, 3392855.15; 684388.09, 3392832.16; 684369.46, 3392810.30;
684349.50, 3392789.65; 684328.27, 3392770.30; 684305.87, 3392752.32;
684282.39, 3392735.78; 684257.92, 3392720.75; 684232.55, 3392707.28;
684206.38, 3392695.43; 684179.52, 3392685.25; 684152.08, 3392676.78;
684124.16, 3392670.04; 684095.87, 3392665.08; 684067.32, 3392661.89;
684038.63, 3392660.51; 684009.91, 3392660.93; 683981.28, 3392663.16;
683966.02, 3392656.75; 683947.05, 3392647.66; 683923.43, 3392639.12;
683903.85, 3392628.04; 683886.86, 3392619.00; 683867.12, 3392613.87;
683843.82, 3392618.55; 683819.20, 3392623.21; 683789.11, 3392634.33;
683770.46, 3392638.47; 683744.30, 3392651.02; 683720.12, 3392664.28;
683706.10, 3392668.55; 683685.47, 3392672.64; 683658.43, 3392667.97;
683632.03, 3392664.65; 683606.95, 3392661.36; 683585.89, 3392656.18;
683542.11, 3392633.24; 683512.11, 3392615.27; 683479.46, 3392597.24;
683450.00, 3392583.92; 683423.91, 3392568.70; 683385.42, 3392545.89;
683371.14, 3392534.94; 683348.35, 3392519.81; 683332.69, 3392510.81;
683315.62, 3392505.08; 683294.59, 3392498.59; 683272.28, 3392490.74;
683253.15, 3392487.60; 683203.24, 3392496.89; 683207.64, 3392582.95;
683209.99, 3392696.72; 683212.45, 3392729.84; 683218.34, 3392783.54;
683218.66, 3392796.77; 683214.15, 3392817.81; 683194.50, 3392886.06;
683182.83, 3392927.40; 683174.68, 3392960.91; 683171.34, 3392987.93;
683171.38, 3393011.73; 683174.93, 3393028.35; 683181.19, 3393042.39;
683179.64, 3393050.95; 683179.13, 3393070.77; 683177.70, 3393100.48;
683176.50, 3393146.73; 683179.16, 3393171.92; 683183.14, 3393197.15;
683188.54, 3393219.10; 683190.03, 3393238.31; 683189.67, 3393252.19;
683214.05, 3393256.78; 683227.92, 3393258.46; 683266.03, 3393270.03;
683309.50, 3393279.08; 683347.79, 3393284.04; 683367.66, 3393283.89;
683389.34, 3393286.52; 683469.22, 3393300.40; 683524.08, 3393304.46;
683580.93, 3393308.57; 683593.71, 3393300.97; 683608.59, 3393292.07;
683614.08, 3393305.37; 683626.69, 3393331.18; 683640.90, 3393356.14;
683656.64, 3393380.17; 683673.86, 3393403.15; 683692.49, 3393425.01;
683712.46, 3393445.66; 683733.68, 3393465.01; 683756.08, 3393482.99;
683779.56, 3393499.53; 683804.04, 3393514.57; 683829.41, 3393528.03;
683855.57, 3393539.88; 683882.43, 3393550.06; 683909.88, 3393558.54;
683937.80, 3393565.27; 683966.09, 3393570.24; 683994.63, 3393573.42;
684023.32, 3393574.80.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-8, Subunit C is provided at
paragraph (6)(xiv)(B) of this entry.
(xiii) Unit RFS-9, Subunit A--Calhoun County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Broad Branch, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 664818.75, 3351879.40; 664810.75, 3352336.50; 664839.47,
3352336.10; 664868.11, 3352333.90; 664896.55, 3352329.90; 664924.68,
3352324.13; 664952.40, 3352316.60; 664979.59, 3352307.34; 665006.14,
3352296.40; 665031.95, 3352283.81; 665056.93, 3352269.63; 665080.96,
3352253.90; 665103.96, 3352236.70; 665125.83, 3352218.08; 665146.49,
3352198.13; 665165.86, 3352176.93; 665183.85, 3352154.54; 665200.41,
3352131.08; 665215.46, 3352106.61; 665228.94, 3352081.26; 665240.81,
3352055.10; 665251.01, 3352028.25; 665259.50, 3352000.82; 665266.26,
3351972.90; 665271.25, 3351944.62; 665274.45, 3351916.08; 665275.85,
3351887.39; 665275.45, 3351858.67; 665273.25, 3351830.04; 665269.26,
3351801.60; 665263.48, 3351773.46; 665255.95, 3351745.75; 665246.70,
3351718.56; 665235.75, 3351692.00; 665223.16, 3351666.19; 665208.98,
3351641.22; 665193.25, 3351617.18; 665176.05, 3351594.19; 665157.44,
3351572.31; 665137.49, 3351551.65; 665116.28, 3351532.29; 665093.90,
3351514.29; 665070.43, 3351497.73; 665045.97, 3351482.68; 665020.61,
3351469.20; 664994.45, 3351457.33; 664967.61, 3351447.13; 664940.17,
3351438.64; 664912.26, 3351431.89; 664883.97, 3351426.90; 664855.43,
3351423.70; 664826.74, 3351422.29; 664798.03, 3351422.69; 664769.39,
3351424.89; 664740.95, 3351428.89; 664712.82, 3351434.66; 664685.10,
3351442.19; 664657.91, 3351451.45; 664631.36, 3351462.39; 664605.54,
3351474.98; 664580.57, 3351489.17; 664556.54, 3351504.89; 664533.54,
3351522.09; 664511.67, 3351540.71; 664491.01, 3351560.66; 664471.64,
3351581.87; 664453.64, 3351604.25; 664437.09, 3351627.72; 664422.04,
3351652.18; 664408.55, 3351677.53; 664396.69, 3351703.69; 664386.49,
3351730.54; 664377.99, 3351757.97; 664371.24, 3351785.89; 664366.25,
3351814.17; 664363.05, 3351842.71; 664361.65, 3351871.40; 664362.05,
3351900.12; 664364.25, 3351928.75; 664368.24, 3351957.19; 664374.02,
3351985.33; 664381.55, 3352013.04; 664390.80, 3352040.23; 664401.74,
3352066.79; 664414.33, 3352092.60; 664428.52, 3352117.57; 664444.24,
3352141.60; 664461.45, 3352164.60; 664480.06, 3352186.47; 664500.01,
3352207.14; 664521.22, 3352226.50; 664543.60, 3352244.50; 664567.07,
3352261.06; 664591.53, 3352276.11; 664616.89, 3352289.59; 664643.04,
3352301.46; 664669.89, 3352311.66; 664697.33, 3352320.15; 664725.24,
3352326.90; 664753.53, 3352331.89; 664782.07, 3352335.09; 664810.75,
3352336.50.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-9, Subunit A is provided at
paragraph (6)(xiv)(B) of this entry.
(xiv) Unit RFS-9, Subunit B--Calhoun County, Florida. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Dead Lake, Florida.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 677786.48, 3346665.69; 676322.21, 3345710.86; 676293.52,
3345709.49; 676264.80, 3345709.91; 676236.17, 3345712.14; 676207.73,
3345716.17; 676179.60, 3345721.97; 676151.89, 3345729.52; 676124.71,
3345738.80; 676098.16, 3345749.77; 676072.36, 3345762.39; 676047.40,
3345776.60; 676023.38, 3345792.34; 676000.40, 3345809.57; 675978.54,
3345828.20; 675957.90, 3345848.17; 675938.55, 3345869.40; 675920.57,
3345891.80; 675904.04, 3345915.28; 675889.01, 3345939.76; 675875.55,
3345965.13; 675863.71, 3345991.30; 675853.53, 3346018.16; 675845.07,
3346045.60; 675838.34, 3346073.52; 675833.38, 3346101.81; 675830.20,
3346130.36; 675828.82, 3346159.05; 675829.25, 3346187.76; 675831.48,
3346216.40; 675835.50, 3346244.84; 675841.31, 3346272.97; 675848.86,
3346300.67; 675858.14, 3346327.85; 675869.11, 3346354.40; 675881.73,
3346380.20; 675895.94, 3346405.16; 675911.69, 3346429.18; 675928.91,
3346452.16; 675947.55, 3346474.02; 675967.52, 3346494.66; 675988.75,
3346514.01; 676011.15, 3346531.98; 676034.63, 3346548.52; 676059.11,
3346563.55; 676084.48, 3346577.01; 676110.65, 3346588.85; 676137.51,
3346599.02; 679138.53, 3347597.18; 679165.98, 3347605.65; 679193.90,
3347612.37; 679222.19, 3347617.34; 679250.74, 3347620.51; 679279.43,
3347621.89; 679308.15, 3347621.46; 679336.78, 3347619.23; 679365.22,
3347615.21; 679393.35, 3347609.41; 679421.06, 3347601.85; 679448.25,
3347592.57; 679474.79, 3347581.60; 679500.60, 3347568.99; 679525.56,
3347554.78; 679549.58, 3347539.03; 679572.56, 3347521.81; 679594.42,
3347503.17; 679615.06, 3347483.20; 679634.41, 3347461.97; 679652.39,
3347439.57; 679668.92, 3347416.09; 679683.95, 3347391.61; 679697.41,
3347366.24; 679709.25, 3347340.07; 679719.43, 3347313.22; 679727.89,
3347285.77;
[[Page 6770]]
679734.62, 3347257.85; 679739.58, 3347229.56; 679742.76, 3347201.01;
679744.14, 3347172.32; 679743.71, 3347143.61; 679741.48, 3347114.97;
679737.46, 3347086.53; 679731.66, 3347058.40; 679724.10, 3347030.69;
679714.82, 3347003.51; 679703.85, 3346976.97; 679691.23, 3346951.16;
679677.02, 3346926.20; 679661.27, 3346902.19; 679644.05, 3346879.20;
679625.41, 3346857.35; 679605.44, 3346836.70; 679584.21, 3346817.36;
679561.81, 3346799.38; 679538.33, 3346782.84; 679513.85, 3346767.82;
679488.47, 3346754.36; 679462.31, 3346742.52; 679435.45, 3346732.34;
676434.42, 3345734.20; 676406.97, 3345725.73; 676379.05, 3345719.00;
676350.76, 3345714.04; 676322.21, 3345710.86.
(B) Note: Map of Units RFS-8 and RFS-9 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 6771]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.009
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 6772]]
(7) Reticulated flatwood salamander--Baker and Miller Counties,
Georgia.
(i) Unit RFS-10, Subunit A--Miller County, Georgia. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Donalsonville NE, Georgia.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 709773.06, 3456290.97; 709801.78, 3456290.64; 709830.43,
3456288.51; 709858.89, 3456284.58; 709887.04, 3456278.87; 709914.78,
3456271.41; 709942.00, 3456262.22; 709968.58, 3456251.34; 709994.43,
3456238.81; 710019.45, 3456224.68; 710043.52, 3456209.01; 710066.57,
3456191.86; 710088.49, 3456173.30; 710109.20, 3456153.39; 710128.62,
3456132.23; 710146.68, 3456109.89; 710163.30, 3456086.45; 710178.41,
3456062.02; 710191.96, 3456036.69; 710203.89, 3456010.56; 710214.16,
3455983.73; 710222.72, 3455956.31; 710229.54, 3455928.41; 710234.60,
3455900.13; 710237.88, 3455871.59; 710239.35, 3455842.91; 710239.02,
3455814.18; 710236.89, 3455785.53; 710232.96, 3455757.08; 710227.25,
3455728.92; 710219.79, 3455701.18; 710210.60, 3455673.97; 710199.72,
3455647.38; 710187.19, 3455621.53; 710173.06, 3455596.52; 710157.39,
3455572.44; 710140.24, 3455549.40; 710121.68, 3455527.48; 710101.77,
3455506.76; 710080.61, 3455487.34; 710058.27, 3455469.29; 710034.83,
3455452.67; 710010.40, 3455437.56; 709985.07, 3455424.01; 709958.94,
3455412.08; 709932.11, 3455401.81; 709904.69, 3455393.25; 709876.79,
3455386.42; 709848.51, 3455381.36; 709819.97, 3455378.09; 709791.29,
3455376.62; 709762.56, 3455376.95; 709733.91, 3455379.08; 709705.46,
3455383.01; 709677.30, 3455388.71; 709649.56, 3455396.18; 709622.35,
3455405.37; 709595.76, 3455416.25; 709569.91, 3455428.78; 709544.90,
3455442.90; 709520.82, 3455458.57; 709497.78, 3455475.73; 709475.86,
3455494.29; 709455.15, 3455514.19; 709435.72, 3455535.36; 709417.67,
3455557.70; 709401.05, 3455581.13; 709385.94, 3455605.56; 709372.39,
3455630.89; 709360.46, 3455657.02; 709350.19, 3455683.85; 709341.63,
3455711.27; 709334.80, 3455739.18; 709329.75, 3455767.45; 709326.47,
3455795.99; 709325.00, 3455824.68; 709325.33, 3455853.40; 709327.46,
3455882.05; 709331.39, 3455910.51; 709337.10, 3455938.66; 709344.56,
3455966.40; 709353.75, 3455993.62; 709364.63, 3456020.20; 709377.16,
3456046.05; 709391.29, 3456071.07; 709406.96, 3456095.14; 709424.11,
3456118.19; 709442.67, 3456140.11; 709462.57, 3456160.82; 709483.74,
3456180.24; 709506.08, 3456198.30; 709529.51, 3456214.92; 709553.94,
3456230.03; 709579.27, 3456243.58; 709605.40, 3456255.51; 709632.23,
3456265.78; 709659.65, 3456274.34; 709687.56, 3456281.16; 709715.83,
3456286.22; 709744.37, 3456289.49; 709773.06, 3456290.97.
(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-10, Subunit A is provided at
paragraph (7)(ii)(B) of this entry.
(ii) Unit RFS-10, Subunit B--Baker County, Georgia. From USGS
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Bethany, Georgia.
(A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates
(E, N): 734799.11, 3462120.86; 735025.60, 3462958.51; 735075.16,
3462764.67; 735444.38, 3461469.20; 735412.19, 3461400.33; 735420.28,
3461310.28; 735420.28, 3461223.05; 735430.58, 3461136.30; 735479.60,
3461141.39; 735578.13, 3461132.68; 735613.43, 3461091.58; 735650.82,
3461010.58; 735669.51, 3460923.35; 735703.92, 3460811.06; 735756.74,
3460736.42; 735800.35, 3460649.19; 735744.28, 3460624.27; 735432.74,
3460624.27; 735021.51, 3460618.04; 735040.20, 3460767.58; 734952.97,
3460823.66; 734840.82, 3460861.04; 734812.02, 3460938.41; 734541.74,
3461658.58; 734504.36, 3461783.19; 734301.81, 3462565.34; 734165.92,
3462612.37; 734048.55, 3462652.99; 733925.73, 3462646.35; 733818.44,
3462640.54; 733818.98, 3462680.42; 733831.44, 3462724.03; 733831.91,
3462789.15; 733887.18, 3462970.92; 733929.82, 3463111.13; 733981.10,
3463244.98; 734029.39, 3463371.05; 734111.12, 3463466.09; 734161.67,
3463534.03; 734214.05, 3463602.19; 734302.98, 3463595.69; 734405.69,
3463535.78; 734460.75, 3463434.34; 734585.36, 3463428.11; 734697.51,
3463384.49; 734766.02, 3463372.96; 734844.43, 3463268.82; 734936.26,
3463146.86; 735025.60, 3462958.51.
(B) Note: Map of Unit RFS-10 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 6773]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.010
[[Page 6774]]
* * * * *
Dated: January 29, 2009.
Jane Lyder,
Assistant Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior.
[FR Doc. E9-2403 Filed 2-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C