Federal Register, Volume 62 Issue 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 1997)

[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65787-65794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32739]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AE38

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to
List the Flatwoods Salamander as Threatened

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of petition finding.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) proposes to list
the flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) as a threatened species
under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). This salamander occurs in isolated populations scattered across
the lower southeastern Coastal Plain in Florida, Georgia, and South
Carolina. Habitat loss and degradation from agriculture, urbanization,
and silvicultural practices have resulted in the loss of over 80
percent of its pine flatwoods habitat. Surviving populations are
currently threatened by the continued destruction and degradation of
their habitat. This proposed rule, if made final, would extend the
Act's protection to this species.

DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by
February 17, 1998. Public hearing requests must be received by January
30, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials concerning this proposal should be
sent to the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 6578
Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. Comments and
materials received will be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linda LaClaire at the above
address, or telephone 601/965-4900, Ext. 26; facsimile 601/965-4340.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The earliest reference to the flatwoods salamander, Ambystoma
cingulatum, was by Cope in 1867 from specimens he collected in Jasper
County, South Carolina (referenced in Martof 1968). This salamander is
a member of the family Ambystomatidae, the mole salamanders, which
contains 15 North American species. A phylogenetic analysis of
ambystomatid salamanders was used to determine that the flatwoods
salamander is most closely related to the ringed salamander (A.
annulatum), which occurs in portions of Arkansas, Missouri, and
Oklahoma (Shaffer et al. 1991).
The flatwoods salamander is a slender, small-headed mole salamander
that rarely exceeds 13 centimeters (cm) (approximately 5 inches (in))
in length when fully mature (Means 1986, Conant and Collins 1991,
Ashton 1992). Adult dorsal color ranges from black to chocolate-black
with highly variable fine, light gray lines forming a netlike or cross-
banded pattern across the back (Palis 1996). Undersurfaces are plain
gray to black with a few creamy or pearl-gray blotches or spots. Sexual
dimorphism is only apparent in breeding males (swollen cloacal region)
or in gravid females. Adults most closely resemble Mabee's salamander,
A. mabeei, with which it shares part of its range in South Carolina
(Martof 1968). Mabee's salamanders are often more brownish; have light
flecking concentrated on their sides rather than the overall pattern of
the flatwoods salamander; and have a single row of jaw teeth as opposed
to multiple rows in the flatwoods salamander (Conant and Collins 1991).
Flatwoods salamander larvae are long and slender, broad-headed and
bushy-gilled, with white bellies and striped sides (Means 1986, Ashton
1992, Palis 1995d). They have distinctive color patterns, typically a
tan mid-dorsal stripe followed by a grayish black dorsolateral stripe,
a pale cream mid-lateral stripe, a blue-black lower lateral stripe and
a pale yellow ventrolateral stripe (Palis 1995d). The head has a dark
brown stripe passing through the eye from the nostril to the gills
(Means 1986).
Optimum habitat for the flatwoods salamander is an open, mesic
woodland of longleaf/slash pine (Pinus palustris/P. elliottii)
flatwoods maintained by frequent fires. Pine flatwoods are typically
flat, low-lying open woodlands that lie between the drier sandhill
community upslope and wetlands down slope (Wolfe et al. 1988). An
organic hardpan, 0.3 to 0.7 meters (m)(1 to 2 feet) into the soil
profile, inhibits subsurface water penetration and results in moist
soils with water often at or near the surface (Wolfe et al. 1988).
Historically, longleaf pine generally dominated the flatwoods with
slash pine restricted to the wetter areas (Wolfe et al. 1988).
Wiregrasses (Aristida sp.), especially A. beyrichiana, are often the
dominant grasses in the herbaceous ground cover (Wolfe et al. 1988).
The ground cover supports a rich herbivorous invertebrate community
which serves as a food source for the flatwoods salamander.
Adult and subadult flatwoods salamanders are fossorial (adapted for
living underground) (Mount 1975). They enlarge crayfish burrows (Ashton
1992) or build their own. Captive flatwoods salamanders have been
observed digging burrows and resting at night with just the tip of
their heads exposed (Goin 1950). Preliminary data indicate that
flatwoods salamander males first breed at 1 year of age and females at
2 years of age (Palis 1996). There are no data on survivorship by age
class for the species. The longevity record for their close relative,
A. annulatum, is 4 years, 11 months; however, many Ambystomatidae live
10 years or longer (Snider and Bowler 1992).
Adult flatwoods salamanders move to their wetland breeding sites
during rainy weather, in association with cold fronts, from October to
December (Palis 1997). Breeding sites are isolated (not connected to
any other water body) pond cypress (Taxodium ascendens), blackgum
(Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), or slash pine dominated depressions
which dry completely on a cyclic basis. They are generally shallow and
relatively small. Breeding sites in Florida have a mean size of 1.49
hectares (ha) (3.68 acres (ac)) and a mean depth of less than 39.2 cm
(15.4 in) (Palis, in press). These wetlands have a marsh-like
appearance with sedges often growing throughout and wiregrasses
(Aristida sp.), panic grasses (Panicum spp.), and other herbaceous
species concentrated in the shallow water edges. Trees and shrubs grow
both in and around the ponds. A relatively open canopy is necessary to
maintain the herbaceous component which serves as cover for flatwoods
salamander larvae and their aquatic invertebrate prey. Flatwoods
salamander larvae were not captured in sample plots with a high
proportion of detritus or open water in a study on the Apalachicola
National Forest in Florida (Sekerak et al., in press). Ponds typically
have a burrowing crayfish fauna (genus Procambarus) and a diverse
macroinvertebrate fauna, but lack large predatory fish (e.g., Lepomis
(sunfish), Macropterus (bass), Amia calva (bowfin)).
Before the breeding sites become flooded, the males and females
court and the females lay their eggs (singly or in clumps) beneath leaf
litter, under logs

[[Page 65788]]

and sphagnum moss mats, or at bases of bushes, small trees, or clumps
of grass (Anderson and Williamson 1976, Means 1986). Egg masses have
also been found at the entrances of and within crayfish burrows
(Anderson and Williamson 1976). Embryos begin development immediately,
but the egg must be inundated before it will hatch. Depending on when
eggs are inundated, the larvae usually metamorphose in March or April;
the length of the larval period varies from 11 to 18 weeks (Palis
1995d).
The timing and frequency of rainfall is critical to the successful
reproduction and recruitment of flatwoods salamanders. Fall rains are
required to facilitate movements to the pond and winter rains are
needed to ensure that ponds are filled sufficiently to allow hatching,
development, and metamorphosis of larvae. In contrast, too much
rainfall in the summer will keep pond levels from dropping below the
grassy pond edge, as needed to provide dry substrate for egg
deposition. This reliance on specific weather conditions results in
unpredictable breeding events and reduces the likelihood that
recruitment will occur every year.
Adult flatwoods salamanders leave the pond site after breeding.
Studies have suggested a homing ability, based on data that salamanders
exit the breeding pond near the point of their arrival (Palis 1997).
Movements greater than 1,700 m (1,859 yards (yd)) from the breeding
pond have been recorded (Ashton 1992). Preliminary studies indicate
that the activity range of some individuals (encompassing both
terrestrial habitat, breeding sites, and the areas through which they
migrate) exceeds 1,500 square m (1,640 square yd) (Ashton 1992).
Refugia are needed within this activity range as individuals travel
from their breeding sites to the subterranean habitats where they spend
the majority of their lives. Thus, a flatwoods salamander population
has been defined as those salamanders using breeding sites within 3.2
kilometers (km) (2 miles (mi)) of each other, barring an impassable
barrier such as a perennial stream (Palis, in press).
High quality habitat for the flatwoods salamander includes a number
of isolated wetland breeding sites within a landscape of longleaf pine/
slash pine flatwoods with an abundant herbaceous ground cover (Sekerak
1994). A mosaic of ponds with varying hydrologies is needed to provide
appropriate breeding conditions under different climatic regimes.
The historical range of the flatwoods salamander included parts of
the States of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina located in
the lower Coastal Plain of the southeastern United States. A museum
record from Mississippi previously thought to be a flatwoods salamander
has been discounted by knowledgeable researchers (Moler, pers. comm.,
1988). However, it is possible that flatwoods salamanders once occurred
in extreme southeastern Mississippi due to similarities in habitat to
historical sites in adjacent Alabama. Recent surveys (Kuss 1988; L.
LaClaire, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. obs., 1995) have not
documented the occurrence of flatwoods salamanders in Mississippi.
Historical records for the flatwoods salamander are limited.
Longleaf pine/slash pine flatwoods historically occurred in a broad
band across the lower southeastern Coastal Plain. The flatwoods
salamander likely occurred in appropriate habitat throughout this area
(Means, pers. comm., 1995). The present distribution of the flatwoods
salamander consists of isolated populations scattered across the
remaining longleaf pine/slash pine flatwoods. The Service has compiled
110 historical records for the flatwoods salamander. Historical records
are defined as those localities found prior to 1990. Localities consist
of collections made either by sampling breeding sites or collections
made of individuals crossing highways on their way to or from breeding
sites. During surveys of these localities over the last 7 years, the
exact site was located for 52 records (47 percent) and the general area
(within several miles) was determined for 45 others (41 percent).
Thirteen sites could not be located due to limited information in the
record. Of the 97 historical records that were visited, flatwoods
salamanders were relocated at only 12 localities (12 percent).
Range-wide surveys of available habitat in Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, and South Carolina have been ongoing since 1990 in an effort
to locate new populations. A total of at least 1,189 wetlands, which
had a minimum of marginal suitability for the flatwoods salamander,
were sampled, most of them multiple times. Of these, flatwoods
salamanders were found at 102 sites (9 percent success rate). Most
surveys were presence/absence searches for larvae, thus no estimates of
population size or viability can be inferred from these data.
Information on the current status of the flatwoods salamander by
State can be briefly summarized as follows:
In Alabama, there are five historical localities for the flatwoods
salamander, all in the extreme southern portion of the State. Surveys
conducted from 1992 to 1995 at the historical breeding ponds and other
potential breeding sites were not successful at locating any flatwoods
salamander populations (Godwin 1994, pers. comm., 1997). The salamander
was last observed in Alabama in 1981 (Jones et al. 1982).
A total of 33 historical records in 19 counties have been reported
for Georgia (Goin 1950, Seyle 1994, Williamson and Moulis 1994);
however, flatwoods salamanders have not been relocated at any of these
sites in recent years. Surveys over the last 7 years of at least 451
wetlands with potential habitat for the flatwoods salamander have
resulted in the location of 27 new breeding sites (6 percent success
rate). These 27 breeding sites comprise 10 populations (sites within a
3.2 km (2 mi) radius of one another are considered the same population)
(Seyle 1994; Jensen 1995; Moulis 1995a, 1995b; K. Lutz, The Nature
Conservancy of Georgia, pers. comm., 1994; D. Stevenson, The Nature
Conservancy of Georgia, pers. comm., 1996; L. LaClaire, pers. obs.,
1995, 1997). Most extant breeding sites occur on Fort Stewart Military
Installation.
In South Carolina, there are 29 historical records for the
flatwoods salamander. Despite annual surveys since 1990, flatwoods
salamanders have been found at only three of these sites (all sites
represent a different population). One site is located on the Francis
Marion National Forest and the other two are on private land. No new
flatwoods salamander populations have been found, although surveys have
been conducted at 57 additional wetlands considered to be potential
habitat for this species.
In Florida, 39 of the 43 historical sites were relocated (or the
general area thought to be the location). Nine (23 percent) contained
flatwoods salamanders. Additional survey work over the past 7 years of
at least 500 potential sites over a 22 county area resulted in the
location of 75 new breeding sites (15 percent of total sites surveyed).
The total number of extant flatwoods salamander populations known to
occur in Florida is 34 with most occurring on the Apalachicola National
Forest and Eglin Air Force Base (Palis 1993, 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1995c;
Printiss and Means 1996).
The combined State data from all survey work completed since 1990
indicate that 47 populations of flatwoods salamanders are known from
across the historical range. Most of these occur in Florida (34
populations or 72 percent). Ten populations have been found in Georgia,
three in South Carolina, and none have been found in Alabama. Some of
these populations are

[[Page 65789]]

inferred from the capture of a single individual. Approximately half of
the known populations for the flatwoods salamander occur on public land
(25 of 47, or 53 percent). Federal landholdings that harbor flatwoods
salamanders include the Apalachicola National Forest, Osceola National
Forest, St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge, and Eglin Air Force Base in
Florida; Fort Stewart Military Installation and Townsend Bombing Range
in Georgia; and Francis Marion National Forest in South Carolina. An
additional population is located on property managed by the State of
Florida in the Pine Log State Forest. The remaining sites are on
private land.

Previous Federal Action

The flatwoods salamander was identified as a Category 2 species in
the Service's notices of review for animals published in the Federal
Register on December 30, 1982 (47 FR 58454), September 18, 1985 (50 FR
37958), January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804),
and November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982). Prior to 1996, a Category 2
species was one that was being considered for possible addition to the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, but for which
conclusive data on biological vulnerability and threat were not
currently available to support a proposed rule. Designation of Category
2 species was discontinued in the February 28, 1996, notice of review
(61 FR 7956).
On May 18, 1992, the Service received a petition dated May 8, 1992,
from the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Boulder, Colorado, and
Elizabeth Carlton, Gainesville, Florida, to list the flatwoods
salamander as an endangered or threatened species throughout its
historic range and to designate critical habitat. The petition stated
that available evidence indicated that the flatwoods salamander had
declined precipitously, that it was on the threshold of extirpation in
many locations, and that it had been extirpated from a large portion of
its historic range.
A 90-day finding that the petition did not present substantial
information that the requested action may be warranted was announced in
the Federal Register on May 12, 1993 (58 FR 27986). On August 23, 1993,
attorneys representing the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Jasper
Carlton, the Director of the Biodiversity Legal Foundation, and
Elizabeth Carlton notified the Service of their intent to sue the
Service for violation of the Act. The petitioners felt a determination
of ``may be warranted'' had, in effect, already been made by the
Service through the inclusion of the flatwoods salamander as a Category
2 species on the comprehensive notices of review for animals published
prior to 1993. On April 25, 1994, the suit was filed. In response to
the agreed settlement, and based upon the Service's 1994 draft guidance
relating to petitions for listing former Category 2 species, the 90-day
finding announced on May 12, 1993, was rescinded, and replaced by a
finding that the petitioned action may be warranted. This finding was
announced in the Federal Register on September 21, 1994 (59 FR 48406),
and included a request for comments and biological data on the status
of the flatwoods salamander.
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act and implementing regulations at 50
CFR 424.14, require the Secretary of the Interior, to the extent
practicable, within 12 months of receipt of a petition, to make a
finding as to whether the action requested in the petition is (a) not
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted but precluded. Because of
budgetary constraints and the lasting effects of a congressionally
imposed listing moratorium, the Service is processing petitions and
other listing actions according to the listing priority guidance
published in the Federal Register on December 5, 1996 (61 FR 64475). In
a Federal Register notice published on October 23, 1997 (62 FR 55628),
the guidance was extended beyond fiscal year 1997 until such time as
the fiscal year 1998 appropriations bill for the Department of the
Interior becomes law and new final guidance is published. The fiscal
year 1997 guidance clarifies the order in which the Service will
process rulemakings following two related events: (1) the lifting on
April 26, 1996, of the moratorium on final listings imposed on April
10, 1995 (Pub. L. 104-6), and (2) the restoration of significant
funding for listing through passage of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act passed on April 26, 1996, following severe funding
constraints imposed by a number of continuing resolutions between
November 1995 and April 1996. The guidance calls for giving highest
priority to handling emergency situations (Tier 1) and second highest
priority (Tier 2) to resolving the status of outstanding proposed
listings. Third priority (Tier 3) is given to resolving the
conservation status of candidate species and processing administrative
findings on petitions to add species to the lists or reclassify
threatened species to endangered status. The processing of this
petition and proposed rule falls under Tier 3. At this time, the
Southeast Region has no pending Tier 1 actions and no overdue Tier 2
actions. Additionally, the guidance states that ``effective April 1,
1997, the Service will concurrently undertake all of the activities
presently included in Tiers 1, 2, and 3'' (61 FR 64480). This proposed
rule constitutes the Service's 12-month finding on the petitioned
action.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act 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. 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). These
factors and their application to the flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma
cingulatum Cope) are as follows:
A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range. The major threat to the 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 acreage was approximately 12.8
million ha (32 million ac) (Wolfe et al. 1988, Outcalt 1997). Today,
the combined flatwoods acreage has been reduced to 2.3 million ha (5.6
million ac) or approximately 18 percent of its original extent. These
remaining pine flatwoods (non-plantation forests) areas are typically
fragmented, degraded, second-growth forests.
Large acreages of pine flatwoods have been eliminated through land
use conversions, primarily urban development and conversion to
agriculture and pine plantations (Schultz 1983, Stout and Marion 1993,
Outcalt and Sheffield 1996, Outcalt 1997). Surveys of historical
flatwoods salamander localities documented the destruction of nine
sites from urban development or agriculture and loss of three
additional sites due to their conversion to pine plantations. State
forest inventories completed between 1989 and 1995 indicate that
flatwoods losses through land use conversion are still occurring
(Outcalt 1997). In Florida and Georgia, the States where flatwoods
habitat is concentrated and where most flatwoods salamander populations
occur, 52,600 ha (130,000 ac) were lost to urban and agricultural use
during the survey cycle of 8 years (Outcalt 1997).

[[Page 65790]]

Conversion of existing pine flatwoods second-growth forests to managed
plantations is also continuing. In Georgia and Florida, there was a
yearly loss of this habitat to pine plantations of nearly 20,200 ha
(50,000 ac) in each State with a loss of 24 percent and 20 percent
respectively during the 8 year survey interval (Outcalt 1997). Most of
the remaining second-growth pine flatwoods (56 percent) occur on
private non-industrial lands which are continuing to be converted to
pine plantations after harvest (Outcalt 1997). Urban development is
expanding into forested areas, especially in rapidly developing areas
of Florida and Georgia. If present rates of loss continue, in 25 years
nearly all natural pine flatwoods stands could be destroyed in these
two States (Outcalt 1997).
Flatwoods salamander wetland breeding sites have also been degraded
and destroyed. The number and diversity of these small wetlands have
been reduced by alterations in hydrology, agricultural and urban
development, silvicultural practices (described in more detail below),
dumping in or filling of ponds, conversion of wetlands to fish ponds,
domestic animal grazing, and soil disturbance (Vickers et al. 1985,
Ashton 1992). Hydrological alterations represent the primary threat to
flatwoods salamander breeding sites. Size and suitability of wetlands
as breeding sites depend on subsoil moisture, the permeability of the
hardpan, the pond's drainage area, and other factors. Alterations to
any of these factors can affect the pond's ability to hold water and
function as a breeding site.
Forest management strategies commonly used on pine plantations
contribute to degradation of flatwoods salamander forested and wetland
habitat. These include soil-disturbing site preparation techniques,
lowered fire frequencies and reductions in average area burned per fire
event (see Factor E), high seedling stocking rates, and herbicide use
which reduces plant diversity in the understory. The result of these
strategies is a forest that approaches even-age structure, has a dense
understory, and low herbaceous cover. Forestry practices that directly
affect wetland breeding sites include ditching ponds or low areas to
drain water from a site, converting second-growth pine forests to
bedded pine plantations, harvesting cypress from the ponds, disposing
of slash in wetlands during timber operations, using ponds as part of
ditched fire breaks, using fertilizers near wetlands which can result
in eutrophication, and disturbing the soil at a wetland (Vickers et al.
1985; Ashton 1992; Means et al. 1996; Palis, in press).
Clear-cut harvesting of forested sites appears to be an additional
threat. Studies on this type of harvest have demonstrated negative
short-term impacts on local amphibian populations, especially
salamanders (deMaynadier and Hunter 1995). Raymond and Hardy (1991)
monitored the mole salamander (A. talpodieum) at a breeding site
adjacent to a recent clear-cut. They found that salamanders were
displaced from the cut side of the pond and that there was lowered
survivorship in individuals of the breeding population that immigrated
to the breeding pond from the clear-cut. Flatwoods salamanders may be
vulnerable to the microhabitat drying from clear-cuts due to their
moist permeable skin which acts as a respiratory organ and must remain
moist to function properly (Duellman and Trueb 1986).
Silvicultural practices affecting both upland and breeding habitats
have been implicated in the decline of a flatwoods salamander
population located in the panhandle of western Florida and monitored
for over 20 years (Means et al. 1996). The observed decline at this
site was attributed to habitat modifications resulting from clear-
cutting, conversion of the site to a pine plantation, and fire
suppression. Habitat modifications included soil disturbance,
hydrologic changes, canopy closure, and loss of herbaceous ground
cover.
Habitat quality data were collected during recent surveys of
historical sites where flatwoods salamanders were not relocated.
Habitat quality at these sites was characterized as none (site
destroyed), low (flatwoods salamanders unlikely), moderate (salamanders
possible but habitat degraded), or high (habitat appears suitable for
flatwoods salamanders). Three historical flatwoods salamander
localities (assigned a quality of none) were altered so greatly by
their conversion to slash pine plantations that they were no longer
even marginally suitable for the flatwoods salamander. Forty-one
historical sites (41 of 97, or 42 percent) were of low or moderate
habitat quality. Most of these sites had been converted to slash pine
plantations and had a subsequent loss of habitat suitability (L.
LaClaire, pers. obs., 1997).
The habitat quality surrounding historical flatwoods salamander
breeding ponds in Florida, where flatwoods salamanders have been found
in recent surveys, was characterized by Palis (in press). Each site was
assigned a score based on pine species dominance and disturbance
(second-growth flatwoods versus plantation sites) and the relative
abundance of wiregrass (Aristida sp.) ground cover. Wiregrass was
chosen as a factor of habitat quality because its loss has been used as
an indicator of site degradation from fire suppression and/or soil
disturbance (Clewell 1989). In Palis' study, approximately 70 percent
of the active breeding sites were surrounded by second-growth longleaf
or slash pine flatwoods with nearly undisturbed wiregrass ground cover.
In general, Palis found that the extant populations of the flatwoods
salamander principally occurred on forest lands managed for long
rotation, saw-timber production, rather than on short rotation pine
plantations managed for pulp production.
Road construction plays a part in habitat degradation and
destruction. At least one historical flatwoods breeding site was filled
in association with the construction of a road (Palis 1993). Roads
increase the accessibility of breeding ponds to off-road vehicle
enthusiasts that use pond basins for ``mud bogging'' which disturbs the
soil and vegetation and degrades the quality of a site for flatwoods
salamander breeding. Roads may also alter the quality of isolated
wetlands by draining, damming, or redirecting the water in a basin and
contributing hydrocarbons and other chemical pollution via runoff and
sedimentation.
A number of habitat degradation factors are implicated in the
decline of one South Carolina flatwoods salamander population monitored
for over 20 years (Moulis 1987, Bennett pers. comm. 1997). This site is
bisected by a road that flatwoods salamanders have to cross to reach
their breeding site. Much of the upland area, in which the salamanders
dwell as adults, has undergone urban development (Bennett pers. comm.
1997). In addition, fire suppression has resulted in the loss of the
open, grassy edge associated with quality breeding sites. Habitat
quality at this site has degraded to the point where successful
reproduction and recruitment are infrequent and the population is at
risk.
Extensive surveys have been conducted over the past 7 years in
Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina and Mississippi to search for
flatwoods salamanders at historical localities and at other potential
sites. The low level of success of these surveys is believed to be a
reflection of both the loss of upland and isolated wetland breeding
habitat and the reduction in the quality of these habitats.

[[Page 65791]]

B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes. Overcollecting for scientific purposes may have
contributed to the decline of a South Carolina population which was
also impacted by habitat degradation. Between 1970 and 1976, a minimum
of 84 adults and 870 larvae were collected in this area. Only two
flatwoods salamanders have been captured at this locality since 1990,
in spite of annual monitoring.
Overcollecting does not presently appear to be a significant threat
to populations; however, it may become a problem if the specific
locations become available to the general public. The rarity,
uniqueness, and attractiveness of the species make the flatwoods
salamander a candidate for the pet trade, should it become easy to
obtain.
At some sites, larval flatwoods salamanders have been killed in
association with bait harvesting for crayfish (Palis 1996). However,
while this practice has caused the loss of some individuals, it is not
currently thought to be a significant threat to the species as a whole.
C. Disease or predation. Disease is currently unknown in the
flatwoods salamander.
Exposure to increased predation from fish is a potential threat to
the flatwoods salamander when isolated, seasonally ponded breeding
sites are changed to more permanent wetlands and become inhabited by
fish. Ponds may be modified specifically to serve as fish ponds or
sites may be altered due to the construction of drainage ditches or
firebreaks which provide avenues for fish to enter the wetlands.
Studies of other ambystomatid species have demonstrated a decline in
larval survival in the presence of predatory fish (Semlitsch 1987,
1988).
D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Regulatory
mechanisms currently in effect do not provide adequate protection for
the flatwoods salamander and its habitat. There are no existing
regulatory mechanisms for the protection of the upland habitats where
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 flatwoods
salamander. Under section 404, nationwide permit 26 allows these
wetlands to be filled with no review process if wetlands are less than
0.13 ha (\1/3\ ac) and with only minimal review if they are between
0.13 ha and 1.2 ha (3 ac) in size. Nationwide permit 26 cannot be used
if there is a potential negative effect on a listed species.
Some populations on Federal lands have benefitted where prescribed
burning has been used as a regular management tool. However, multiple
use priorities on public lands, such as timber production, and military
and recreational use, make protection of the flatwoods salamander
secondary. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an
intensive environmental review of projects that may adversely affect a
federally listed species, but project proponents are not required to
avoid impacts to non-listed species.
At the State and local levels, regulatory mechanisms are also
limited. The flatwoods salamander is listed as a rare protected species
in the State of Georgia (Seyle 1994). This designation protects the
species by prohibiting actions that cause direct mortality or the
destruction of its habitat on lands owned by the State of Georgia and
by preventing its sale, purchase, or possession (Jensen, pers. comm.,
1997). At present, there are no known flatwoods salamander populations
on lands owned by the State of Georgia. In South Carolina, the
flatwoods salamander is listed as endangered (Bennett 1995).
Prohibitions extend only to the direct take of the flatwoods salamander
(Bennett, pers. comm., 1997). These regulations offer no protection
against the most significant threat to the flatwoods salamander, which
is loss of its habitat. The flatwoods salamander is considered rare in
Florida by the Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and
Animals (Ashton 1992); however, there are no protective regulations for
this species or its habitat in the State (Moler 1990).
E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence. Fire is needed to maintain the natural pine flatwoods
community. Fire suppression has been considered the primary reason for
the degradation of remaining longleaf pine forest acreage (Means
1996b). Wolfe et al. (1988) reported that pine flatwoods naturally burn
every 3 to 4 years, probably most commonly in the summer months.
Sampling of longleaf pine flatwoods sites in Florida indicated that
less than 30 percent of sites on private lands were being prescribed
burned to mimic the effects of natural fire (Outcalt 1997). The
disruption of the natural fire cycle has resulted in an increase in
slash pine on sites formerly dominated by longleaf pine, an increase in
hardwood understory, and a decrease in herbaceous ground cover (Wolfe
et al. 1988; Means, pers. comm., 1995). Ponds surrounded by pine
plantations and protected from the natural fire regime become
unsuitable 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 1993). Of the 13
historical flatwoods salamander localities altered to the point where
the habitat was no longer suitable, fire suppression was a contributing
factor in at least 5 (38 percent). Current forest management is moving
away from burning as a management tool due to liability considerations
and concerns that fire will damage the quality of the timber. When
burning is used as a management tool, winter fires are commonly
employed. Winter fires may not be optimal for the flatwoods salamander.
Habitat fragmentation of the longleaf pine ecosystem, resulting
from habitat conversion, threatens the survival of the remaining
flatwoods salamander populations. Forty-seven populations occur across
four States. Fifty-three percent (25 of 47) of these populations are
widely separated from each other by unsuitable habitat. Research
conducted in Florida documented that 25 percent of remaining longleaf
pine flatwoods sites were isolated fragments imbedded in agricultural
and urban-dominated landscapes (Outcalt 1997). Studies have shown that
the loss of fragmented populations is common, and recolonization is
critical for their regional survival (Fahrig and Merriam 1994, Burkey
1995). As patches of available habitat become separated beyond the
dispersal range of a species, populations are more sensitive to
genetic, demographic, and environmental variability and may be unable
to recover (Gilpin 1987, Sjogren 1991). Amphibian populations may be
unable to recolonize areas after local extinctions due to their
physiological constraints, relatively low mobility, and site fidelity
(Blaustein et al. 1994).
Roads contribute to habitat fragmentation by isolating blocks of
remaining contiguous habitat. Migration routes and dispersal of
individuals to and from breeding sites may be disrupted. In addition,
flatwoods salamanders may be killed by vehicles when attempting to
cross roads (Means 1996a).
Pesticides and herbicides may pose a threat to amphibians such as
the flatwoods salamander, because their permeable eggs and skin readily
absorb substances from the surrounding aquatic or terrestrial
environment (Duellman and Trueb 1986). They may be exposed to
pesticides and herbicides accumulated in their invertebrate prey or
their prey may be reduced through

[[Page 65792]]

the use of pesticides. In frogs, use of agricultural pesticides has
resulted in lower survival rates, deformities, and lethal effects on
tadpoles (Sanders 1970, FROGLOG 1993). Other negative effects of
commonly used pesticides and herbicides on amphibians include delayed
metamorphosis, paralysis, reduced growth rates, and mortality (Bishop
1992). Herbicides also alter the density and species composition of
vegetation surrounding a breeding site and may reduce the number of
potential sites for egg deposition, larval development, or shelter for
migrating salamanders.
Long-lasting droughts or frequent floods may affect local flatwoods
salamander populations. Although these are natural processes, other
threats such as habitat fragmentation and habitat degradation may
stress a population to the point that it cannot recover or recolonize
other sites.
The Service has carefully assessed the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by this species in determining to propose this
rule. Based on this evaluation, the preferred action is to list the
flatwoods salamander as threatened. The range and habitat of this
species has been significantly reduced by activities associated with
conversion of forests to agriculture and urban development,
silvicultural practices, and the disruption of natural fire cycles.
Remaining populations are vulnerable as suitable habitat continues to
be lost or degraded by these activities. While not in immediate danger
of extinction, the flatwoods salamander is likely to become an
endangered species in the foreseeable future if the present trend
continues.

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 (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
consideration 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'' means the use of all methods and
procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing
under the Act is no longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Service
regulations (50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical
habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following situations
exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other activity and
the identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species or (2) such designation of critical
habitat would not be beneficial to the species. The Service finds that
designation of critical habitat is not prudent for the flatwoods
salamander.
Critical habitat designation, by definition, directly affects only
Federal agency actions. Activities that might affect the flatwoods
salamander on Federal lands include forestry management, military
activities, and Federal actions that would impact the hydrology of the
wetlands used by the flatwoods salamander for reproduction. Such
activities would be subject to review under section 7(a)(2) of the Act,
whether or not critical habitat was designated. Federal permit issuance
on private lands would also be subject to review; however, the primary
activities affecting habitat for the flatwoods salamander on private
lands are silvicultural, and are not subject to the Federal review
process under section 7.
Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities
they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or to destroy or adversely
modify its critical habitat. Common to definitions of the ``jeopardy''
and ``adverse modification'' standards is an appreciable detrimental
effect on both survival and recovery of the species. The Service
currently believes that any significant adverse modification or
destruction of flatwoods salamander habitat to the extent that survival
and recovery is appreciably diminished would likely jeopardize this
species' continued existence. Therefore, habitat protection from
Federal actions can be accomplished for the flatwoods salamander
through the section 7 jeopardy standard. The Service is currently
working with the appropriate Federal land managing agencies to
identify, protect, and manage flatwoods salamander habitat.
On private lands, industrial timber landowners are cooperating with
the Service to conduct surveys for the flatwoods salamander and to
develop management strategies to protect its habitat. Should this rule
become final, the Service will continue to coordinate with State and
Federal agencies, as well as private property owners and other affected
parties through the recovery process to manage habitat for the
flatwoods salamander.
The Service believes that any potential benefits to critical
habitat designation are outweighed by additional threats to the species
that would result from such designation. Collecting for scientific and
recreational purposes is a potential threat to the survival of the
flatwoods salamander (see Factor B). Flatwoods salamanders are a rare
and attractive species, and these characteristics make them potentially
valuable in the pet trade. The collection of amphibians and reptiles
for the pet trade has increased in recent years. For example, all box
turtles have been placed on Appendix II of the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora due
to the increased commercialization of these species. Collection of
amphibians and reptiles for personal use and the pet trade is common in
the vicinity of the most viable flatwoods salamander populations (K.
Enge, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, pers. comm., 1997).
Permits are required for commercial collecting; however, collection
regulations are difficult to monitor and enforce. Flatwoods salamanders
concentrate for breeding and reproduction around breeding ponds, where
they are most vulnerable to collecting. Publication of specific
localities of breeding ponds would be required in the critical habitat
designation process in order to obtain the notification benefit
provided by such designation. The publication of breeding pond sites
would increase the flatwoods salamander's level of vulnerability to
illegal collecting.
Based on the above analysis, the Service has concluded that
critical habitat designation would provide little additional benefit
for the flatwoods salamander beyond that which would result from
listing under the Act. The Service also concludes that any potential
benefit from such a designation would be offset by an increased level
of vulnerability to collecting.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
activities. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation actions by Federal, State, and local

[[Page 65793]]

agencies, private organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for
possible land acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires
that recovery actions be carried out for all listed species. The
protection required of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against
taking and harm are discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer informally with the
Service on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of a proposed species or result in destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is subsequently
listed, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency
must enter into formal consultation with the Service.
The flatwoods salamander occurs on Federal lands administered by
the Department of Defense, Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Forest
Service. These land management agencies would be required to evaluate
the potential adverse impacts to the flatwoods salamander from their
activities. Federal activities that could impact the flatwoods
salamander through destruction or modification of suitable habitat
include, but are not limited to, forest management, military
operations, and road construction. Other Federal agencies that may be
involved in authorizing, funding, or permitting activities that may
affect the flatwoods salamander include the Army Corps of Engineers,
due to their review of dredge and fill of isolated wetlands under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act, nationwide permit 26; the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, due to their oversight of gas pipeline
and power line rights-of-way; and the Federal Highway Administration
when Federal funds are involved in road construction. It has been the
experience of the Service, however, that nearly all section 7
consultations have been resolved so that the species have been
protected and the project objectives have been met.
The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all threatened
wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 and 17.31 for
threatened 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.
Permits may be issued to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving threatened wildlife species under certain circumstances.
Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.32 for
threatened species. Such permits are available for scientific purposes,
to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and/or for
incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities. For
threatened species, permits also are available for zoological
exhibition, educational purposes, or special purposes consistent with
the purposes of the Act. In some instances, permits may be issued for a
specified time to relieve undue economic hardship that would be
suffered if such relief were not available. However, since this species
is not currently in trade, such permit requests are not expected.
It is the policy of the Service, published in the Federal Register
on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34272), to identify, to the maximum extent
practicable, those activities that would or would not constitute a
violation of section 9 of the Act if the species is listed. The intent
of this policy is to increase public awareness of the effects of the
proposed listing on future and ongoing activities within a species'
range. Activities which the Service believes are unlikely to result in
a violation of section 9 for the flatwoods salamander are:
(1) Possession of legally acquired flatwoods salamanders;
(2) Lawful hunting activities;
(3) Lawful burning of habitat where the flatwoods salamander is
known to occur, when used as a forest or wildlife management technique,
including winter burning;
(4) Federally approved projects that involve activities such as
discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, tiling, bedding,
diversion or alteration of surface or ground water flow into or out of
a wetland (i.e., due to roads, impoundments, discharge pipes, etc.),
when such activity is conducted in accordance with any reasonable and
prudent measures given by the Service in accordance with section 7 of
the Act;
(5) Conversion of pine flatwoods habitat where the flatwoods
salamander does not occur;
(6) Timber harvesting (including clear-cutting) in pine flatwoods
habitat where the flatwoods salamander does not occur; and
(7) Crayfish bait collecting operations that do not harm flatwoods
salamanders.
Activities that the Service believes would be likely to result in a
violation of section 9, if the species is listed, include, but are not
limited to:
(1) Unauthorized collecting or handling of individual flatwoods
salamanders;
(2) Possessing, selling, transporting, or shipping illegally taken
flatwoods salamanders;
(3) Unauthorized destruction or alteration of wetlands used as
breeding sites by flatwoods salamanders. These actions would include
discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, tiling, bedding,
diversion or alteration of surface or ground water flow into or out of
a wetland (i.e., due to roads, impoundments, discharge pipes, etc.),
and operation of any vehicles within the wetland;
(4) Discharge or dumping of toxic chemicals, silt, or other
pollutants (i.e., sewage, oil, and gasoline) into isolated wetlands or
upland habitats supporting the species; and
(5) Unlawful destruction or alteration of suitable pine flatwoods
habitat within a 1.6-km (1-mi) radius surrounding a known flatwoods
salamander breeding pond. These actions would include, but are not
limited to, destruction of the herbaceous ground cover or alteration of
a site's existing hydrology, such as might result from conversion of
habitat to agricultural or urban use, conversion of habitat to
intensively managed pine plantations, or ditching and draining a site.
Other activities not identified above will be reviewed on a case-
by-case basis to determine whether a violation of section 9 of the Act
may be likely to result from such activities should the flatwoods
salamander become listed. The Service does not consider these lists to
be exhaustive and provides them as information to the public.
Questions regarding whether specific activities may constitute a
future violation of section 9, should this species be listed, should be
directed to

[[Page 65794]]

the Field Supervisor of the Service's Jackson Field Office (see
ADDRESSES section). Requests for copies of the regulations regarding
listed wildlife and inquiries about prohibitions and permits may be
addressed to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Blvd.,
Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345, or telephone 404/679-7319; facsimile
404/679-7081.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) authorizes the Service to issue permits for the
taking of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities such
as agriculture, forestry, and urban development. Take permits
authorized under section 10 must be supported by a habitat conservation
plan (HCP) that identifies conservation measures that the permittee
agrees to implement to conserve the species. A key element of the
Service's review of a HCP is a determination of the plan's effect upon
the long-term conservation of the species. The Service would approve a
HCP, and issue a section 10(a)(1)(B) permit if the plan would minimize
and mitigate the impacts of the taking and would not appreciably reduce
the likelihood of the survival and recovery of that species in the
wild.

Public Comments Solicited

The Service intends that any final action resulting from this
proposal will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore,
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments are
particularly sought concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or relevant data concerning any
threat (or lack thereof) to the flatwoods salamander;
(2) The location of any additional populations of this species and
the reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined to be
critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;
(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and
population size of this species; and
(4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their
possible impact on this species.
Final promulgation of the regulation on this species will take into
consideration the comments and any additional information received by
the Service, and such communications may lead to a final regulation
that differs from this proposal.
The Act provides for one or more public hearings on the proposal,
if requested. Requests must be received within 45 days of the date of
publication of the proposal in the Federal Register. Such requests must
be made in writing and addressed to the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES
section).

National Environmental Policy Act

The Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that an Environmental
Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, need not be prepared in connection
with regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. A notice outlining the Service's
reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Required Determinations

The Service has examined this regulation under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 and found it to contain no information collection
requirements.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited herein, as well as others,
is available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Jackson Field
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Author: The primary author of this proposed rule is Linda V.
LaClaire, Jackson Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
record-keeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, the Service hereby proposes to amend part 17,
subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

2. Amend section 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical
order under AMPHIBIANS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened
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 flatwoods............. Ambystoma cingulatum U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA, Entire............. T NA NA
SC).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: November 24, 1997.
Jamie Rappaport Clark,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-32739 Filed 12-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P