Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered Status for Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for Frosted Flatwoods Salamander and Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander, 47258-47324 [E8-17894]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 47258-47324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17894]



[[Page 47257]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Endangered 
Status for Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander; Proposed Designation of 
Critical Habitat for Frosted Flatwoods Salamander and Reticulated 
Flatwoods Salamander; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 157 / Wednesday, August 13, 2008 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 47258]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R4-ES-2008-0082] [92210-1111 FY07 MO-B2]
RIN 1018-AU85


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed 
Endangered Status for Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander; Proposed 
Designation of Critical Habitat for Frosted Flatwoods Salamander and 
Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft economic analysis, and 
opening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 
split 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 change in taxonomy. The frosted flatwoods salamander 
will maintain the status of threatened. However, we propose to list the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander as endangered under the Act. We also 
propose to designate critical habitat for both the frosted flatwoods 
salamander and the reticulated flatwoods salamander under the Act. In 
total, approximately 30,628 acres (ac) (12,395 hectares (ha)) (23,132 
ac (9,363 ha) for the frosted flatwoods salamander and 7,496 ac (3,035 
ha) for the reticulated flatwoods salamander) fall within the 
boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation, which is 
located in the panhandle of Florida, southwestern Georgia, and 
southeastern South Carolina. We also announce the availability of the 
draft economic analysis for our proposed designation of critical 
habitat for the frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders. The 
draft economic analysis estimates that, over the period 2009 to 2028, 
post-designation costs for frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamander 
conservation-related activities would range between $3.88 million and 
$6.40 million (at a 3 percent discount rate) and $2.49 million to $4.38 
million (at a 7 percent discount rate). Potential impacts are expected 
to range from $261,000 to $430,000 at 3 percent or $235,000 to $413,000 
at 7 percent annually.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before 
October 14, 2008. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing by September 29, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: [FWS- R4-ES-2008-0082]; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see the Public Comments section 
below for more information).
    Public Hearing requests: To request a public hearing, submit a 
request in writing to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

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 proposed 
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 proposed to 
be listed as endangered; and (2) proposed critical habitat designations 
for both species. We had previously proposed critical habitat for the 
flatwoods salamander on February 7, 2007 (72 FR 5856).

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or suggestions on this proposed rule. We particularly seek 
comments concerning:
    (1)Any available information on known or suspected threats and 
proposed or ongoing projects with the potential to threaten either the 
frosted flatwoods salamander or the reticulated flatwoods salamander or 
any information on the need to change the status of either species, 
including any information suggesting that the frosted flatwoods 
salamander should be listed as anything other than threatened.
    (2)The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including whether the benefit of designation would outweigh 
threats to the species caused by the designation, such that the 
designation of critical habitat is prudent;
    (3)Specific information on:
     The amount and distribution of frosted flatwoods 
salamander and reticulated flatwoods salamander habitat,
     What areas occupied at the time of the original listing 
that contain features essential for the conservation of the species we 
should include in the designation and why, and
     What areas not occupied at the time of listing are 
essential to the conservation of the species and why;
    (4)Land use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
    (5) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any 
impacts on small entities; and the benefits of including or excluding 
areas that exhibit these impacts;
    (6) Information on whether the draft economic analysis identifies 
all State and local costs and benefits attributable to the proposed 
critical habitat designation, and information on any costs or benefits 
that have been inadvertently overlooked.
    (7) Information on whether the draft economic analysis makes 
appropriate assumptions regarding current practices and likely 
regulatory changes that would be imposed as a result of the designation 
of critical habitat.
    (8) Information on whether the draft economic analysis correctly 
assesses the effect on regional costs associated with any land use 
controls that may derive from the designation of critical habitat.
    (9) Information on areas that could potentially be 
disproportionately impacted by the designation of critical habitat.
    (10) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any 
impacts on small entities;
    (11) Economic data on the incremental effects that would result 
from designating any particular area as critical habitat, since it is 
our intent to

[[Page 47259]]

include the incremental costs attributed to the revised critical 
habitat designation in the final economic analysis.
    (12) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments; and
    (13) Information supporting or opposing possible exclusion of units 
within National Forests or on Department of Defense lands from critical 
habitat in the final designation.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
accept comments you send by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed 
in the ADDRESSES section.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on https://www.regulations.gov. If you provide 
personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your 
document that we withhold this information from public review. However, 
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule and draft 
economic analysis will be available for public inspection on https://
www.regulations.gov, or by appointment, during normal business hours, 
at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Field Office (see 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    It is our intent to discuss below only those topics directly 
relevant to the taxonomic split of the flatwoods salamander into two 
species (the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander) and the listing of the reticulated flatwoods salamander as 
endangered in this section of the proposed rule. For more information 
on the flatwoods salamander, refer to the final listing rule published 
in the Federal Register on April 1, 1999 (64 FR 15691). The overall 
range covered by the reticulated and the frosted flatwoods salamanders 
is the same as is currently designated for the flatwoods salamander. 
However, the reticulated flatwoods salamander inhabits the western part 
of the range and the frosted flatwoods salamander inhabits the eastern 
part.
    In light of the taxonomic split, we also re-evaluated the status of 
the frosted flatwoods salamander. We determined that threatened status 
is appropriate for this species because 124 breeding ponds supporting 
22 of the 26 (85 percent) total populations for the species are located 
on public lands, most of these populations are relatively stable, and, 
based on the best scientific information available, we have concluded 
there are a sufficient number of populations that the species is not in 
immediate danger of extinction. The scientific information supporting 
the presence of populations comes from a variety of sources, including 
those data compiled in the Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina Natural 
Heritage databases and individual state databases, and data supplied by 
Fort Stewart Military Installation, Townsend Bombing Range, 
Apalachicola National Forest, Francis Marion National Forest, and St. 
Marks National Wildlife Refuge.
    In general, most threats for this species (for example, habitat 
loss, habitat degradation, inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms) are of a historical nature in the majority of the range 
because breeding ponds supporting 85 percent of frosted flatwoods 
salamander populations occur on public lands where the habitat is 
relatively protected. Appropriate habitat management has been more 
actively pursued and multiple ponds support existing populations in 
many cases. On the 15 percent of ponds on private lands, there are a 
number of potential future threats including habitat loss and 
degradation, disease, predation, and fire suppression. The threat from 
invasive plant species is considered imminent, even on public lands, 
because of the current difficulties in managing for the prevention of 
spread of invasive species into natural habitats. The threat from 
drought is considered imminent for all populations because it is a 
current problem for the species at all sites. We will publish a 
separate notice providing the updated five-factor analysis for the 
frosted flatwoods salamander for public review and comment in the near 
future.

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. Habitat 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) which split the flatwoods salamander into two 
species, the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated 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 
split of the flatwoods salamander into two species is currently 
accepted by the scientific community. We propose to 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 
split 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

[[Page 47260]]

the importance of the tail in ambystomatid courtship and fertilization, 
tail differences may be particularly important.
    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 fore- and hind limbs 
and alonger,wider, and deeper 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 Proposed Regulation Promulgation section of this 
document, we propose the taxonomic change to reflect the split of 
flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) to frosted flatwoods 
salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) and reticulated flatwoods salamander 
(Ambystoma 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). The final 
rule to list the species was published on April 1, 1999 (64 FR 15691). 
We are now proposing to list the reticulated flatwoods salamander as a 
new species that is currently known west of the Apalachicola-Flint 
Rivers as the flatwoods salamander.

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.
    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 for Georgia, one each in Baker and Early Counties. There has been 
no observation of this species at either of these sites in the last 20 
years. Four new reticulated flatwoods salamander breeding ponds 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 40 additional breeding sites. Thirty-one (78 
percent) of these sites are located in Okaloosa and Santa Rosa 
Counties, primarily on Department of Defense lands. Currently, 19 
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 21 populations of the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander. Some of these populations are 
inferred from the capture of a single individual. Ten (48 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 Naval Air Station Whiting 
Field's Holley Out-Lying Field. State and local agencies in Florida and 
Georgia partially manage six additional populations. In Florida, Pine 
Log State Forest and Point Washington State Forest harbor a single 
population each; Northwest Florida Water Management District owns a 
small portion of the habitat occupied by a single population and shares 
management with the Yellow Creek Marsh State Buffer Preserve 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 (52 percent) reticulated flatwoods 
salamander populations are solely on private land.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (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. Only those factors relevant to the proposed reclassification 
of the reticulated flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma bishopi; Goin, 1950) 
from threatened to endangered are described below:

[[Page 47261]]

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, 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 groundcover 
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 groundcover (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 groundcover. 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. Although conversion of native 
pine flatwoods to plantation forests is not considered a significant 
threat at this time, we have documented the historic extirpation of at 
least one previously known population each from Gulf and Jackson 
Counties in Florida, over the last four 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 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 asthe 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 2008). No 
reticulated flatwoods salamanders have been observed at these degraded 
sites since completion of the projects (Cooper 2008).
    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

[[Page 47262]]

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).
    USGS has documented multiple drought periods in the southeastern 
United States since the 1890s (USGS Open File Report 00-380, p. 1). 
Among significant periods documented in the last three decades are: 
1980-1982, 1984-1988, 1998-2000 (USGS Water Supply Paper 2375) and 
currently from 2006-2008. 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) suggested that the flatwoods 
salamander may only live about four years (based on captive animals), 
we are currently unsure of the exact life span of wild individuals. 
Because of this, 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 to look at how many years of reproductive failure 
would be required to result in local extinction of pond-breeding 
salamanders (with varying life spans) 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 for this species 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(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 stochastic events, such as droughts (Palis 2006, p. 7). Currently, 
the only place this situation exists for the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander is on Eglin Air Force Base and these populations are 
threatened with the construction of a proposed highway.
    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 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 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 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 AFB) and 
Hurlburt Field has been proposed and the preferred alternative was 
selected in 2007 (Northwest Florida Transportation Corridor Authority 
2007; Arnold 2007). We are currently in consultation regarding this 
bypass project, however, currently there are no viable alternatives to 
the preferred alternative and the alignment cannot be moved further 
north on the base due to its potential to impact the mission (Arnold 
2007). We believe this proposed road would destroy or severely degrade 
22 breeding sites that support the largest reticulated flatwoods 
salamander population (Mittiga 2007). These breeding sites represent 44 
percent of the known reticulated flatwoods salamander ponds. This Eglin 
population represents the only population of this species supported by 
more than three breeding ponds and functions as a metapopulation.
    Off-road vehicle (ORV) use within reticulated flatwoods salamander 
breeding ponds and their margins severely degrades the wetland habitat. 
In the Southeast, ORV use impacts habitat used by flatwoods salamanders 
and has the potential to cause direct mortality of individual 
salamanders and is a threat on both public and private land. On public 
lands there may be areas designated as off limits to ORV use (U.S. 
Forest Service 2007, p. 19), but these restrictions are very hard 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).
    Insummary, the loss of habitat is a significant threat the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander. This threat is compounded by the 
current environmental conditions, proposed projects, projects which do 
not require Corps permits, 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 loss of its habitat loss that is currently occurring at a rapid 
rate on lands in private ownership within the range of this species. 
Fifty-seven percent of reticulated flatwoods salamander populations are 
on private land, where habitat continues to be degraded by fire 
suppression and inappropriate management. The proposed road project on 
Eglin could result in destruction or degradation of 44 percent of 
remaining breeding ponds and the only metapopulation that exists for 
the reticulated flatwoods salamander. Range-wide historic losses of 
both upland and wetland habitat have

[[Page 47263]]

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; ORVs; and fire suppression. As a 
result, we have determined that the present or threatened destruction, 
modification, or curtailment of the reticulated flatwoods salamander is 
a 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 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 chytrid fungus 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 (Palis 2008). Mortality of amphibians trapped at drift 
fences has occurred when fire ants were present and traps were not 
monitored with sufficient frequency (NCASI 2002, p. 6). The severity 
and magnitude, as well as the long-term effect of fire ants on 
reticulated flatwoods salamander populations is currently unknown.
    Diseases of amphibians in the southeastern United States remain 
largely unstudied. However, given the incidence of disease in species 
which could be considered surrogates for the flatwoods salamander, the 
probability exists for similar infections to occur in reticulated 
flatwoods salamander populations. 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. Fireants also have the potential of being a 
localized threat, particularly in disturbed areas. We consider this 
threat to be imminent and of high magnitude because 70 percent of 
populations are supported by a single breeding pond and diseases, fish, 
and invertebrate predators have been found at ponds within the range 
and are known to cause mortality or reproductive failure in related 
species. Additionally 57 percent of ponds are on private land, 
increasing 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. 
As such, we believe that these threats would also act to exacerbate 
other threats to the 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 2001; Rapanos v. U.S. 
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 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 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

[[Page 47264]]

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. Implementation of the 
plans has often been problematic due to financial and logistic 
constraints. In addition, the plans do not provide assured protection 
from habitat destruction or degradation from land use changes such as 
the proposed road on Eglin AFB and Hurlburt Field (see Factor A, 
above).
    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 (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, existingregulatory 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 57 percent of 
populations are not protected from further development because they are 
located on private lands.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Metapopulations, which are neighboring local populations close 
enough to one another that dispersing individuals could be exchanged 
(gene flow) at least once per generation, 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 21 known reticulated flatwoods salamanders 
populations, only 6 (29 percent) are supported by more than one 
breeding pond and only one (5 percent) population (on Eglin AFB-
Hurlburt Field) is supported by more than three breeding ponds. For 71 
percent (15 out of 21) 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). It has been 
documented that cogongrass can displace most of the 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). 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. Aerial spraying of 
herbicides over outdoor pond mesocosms (semi-field approximations of 
ponds) has been shown to reduce zooplankton diversity, a food source 
for larval reticulated flatwoods salamanders, and cause very high (68 
to 100 percent) mortality in tadpoles and juvenile frogs (Relyea 2005, 
pp. 618-626). The potential for negative effects from pesticide and 
herbicide use in areas adjacent to breeding ponds would be reduced by 
avoiding aerial spraying (Tatum 2004, p. 1047).
    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 that these fish have on the invertebrate prey of 
salamander larvae. 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 notcontainpredatory fish on a regular basis. The presence of 
predatory fish has a marked effect on invertebrate communities and 
alters prey availability for larval salamanders

[[Page 47265]]

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, through 
installation of firebreaks, ditches, and so on, this threat from 
predatory fish exists.
    Studies of reticulated flatwoods salamander populations since the 
original species classification of flatwoods salamander was listed (64 
FR 15691; April 1, 1999) have been limited due to drought. Data on the 
numbers of adults within existing populations does 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, there a number of other natural or manmade factors that 
either threaten, or have the potential to threaten, that have been 
historic threats and continue 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 most of the remaining reticulated flatwoods 
salamander populations, particularly on Eglin Air Force Base. 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 potential threat, 
especially as they 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 in the face of the past 
and current drought conditions and given the nature of pond-breeding 
amphibians to experience periodic reproductive failures naturally. The 
impact 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 major threats listed above with each other, 
these threats constitute additional complicating factors which could 
exacerbate 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 amphibians 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 significant 
threat to the reticulated flatwoods salamander listed in Factor A 
(above), is loss of its habitat. However, a variety of localized 
threats factors (which fall under Factors A, D, and E) continue to 
impact existing wetland breeding sites including alterations in 
hydrology from agriculture (including ``ditching,'' which results in 
the introduction of predatory fish), urban development, road 
construction, and incompatible forest management, ORV use, fire 
suppression, and disease also threaten the species, but the severity 
and magnitude of these threats is not currently known. As a result, we 
have determined that these factors 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. 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 21 reticulated flatwoods salamander populations are known. 
Fifteen (71 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, we are currently experiencing drought conditions. Palis et 
al. (2006, p. 5-6) studied a frosted flatwoods population in Florida 
during a drought from 1999-2002. This study documented three 
consecutive years of reproductive failure and a steady declining 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) 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, 71 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, fourreticulated flatwoods salamander populations have been lost, 
two populations due to urbanization and two populations due to 
inappropriate forest management. The most robust reticulated flatwoods 
salamander population remaining is currently threatened by a proposed 
road through Eglin AFB. The preferred alignment for this road (Mittiga 
2007) could destroy or degrade 44 percent of the known reticulated 
flatwoods salamander breeding sites. This is significant because the 
Eglin AFB population is the only location which is supported by more 
than 3 breeding ponds and functions as a metapopopulation. In other 
words, this population has the

[[Page 47266]]

best chance of surviving demographic and environmental stochasticity 
given the distribution of breeding sites within reticulated flatwoods 
salamander dispersal distance of each other. However, habitat 
supporting this population continues to decline due to inadequate 
prescribed burning. The presence of a road in this vicinity, even if 
there are no direct impacts to vegetative structure or hydrology of the 
breeding and upland sites, will only decrease the opportunities to burn 
the area and increase the habitat degradation.
    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, we have lost at 
least two ponds since 2006 in the range of the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander that we believe resulted from the continuing threat that 
isolated wetlands are rarely, if ever, under the jurisdiction of the 
Corps, thus resulting in limited to no regulatory mechanisms addressing 
this imminent threat. The Eglin bypass (described as sections FWB/
Niceville Bypass, Navarre Bypass and SR 87, collectively) are shown on 
the Northwest Florida Transportation Corridor Authority website as 
priority projects for the next five years, meaning FY 2008-FY 2012 
(Prioritized Master Plan). A preferred alternative was selected in 
2007, but no environmental analysis has been conducted at present. This 
preferred alignment was chosen because any move further north would 
impact the mission of base. We believe there is a reasonable 
expectation that this road could be built, and it is considered an 
imminent threat to the species, its habitat, and overall to the 
continued existence of the population on Eglin AFB. We believe that 
combined, the effect of the historical and ongoing drought, historical, 
current, and projected habitat loss and degradation (including the 
proposed bypass on Eglin), and the exacerbating effects of disease, 
predation, small population size, and isolation would result in the 
reticulate 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 current 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.
    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. Therefore, we are proposing to list the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander as an endangered species under the Act. Endangered status 
reflects the vulnerability of this species to factors that negatively 
affect the species and its limited and restricted habitat.
     We are soliciting comments on this proposed rule and threats to 
the species. Similarly, we request any available information on ongoing 
or proposed development activities within reticulated flatwoods 
salamander habitat.

Available Conservation Measures

     Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
practices. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation by Federal, State, and local agencies, private 
organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible 
cooperation with the States and requires that recovery actions be 
carried out for all listed species. The protection required of Federal 
agencies and the