6700 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS–R4–ES–2008–0082; MO 9921050083– 

B2] 

RIN 1018–AU85 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Determination of 

Endangered Status for Reticulated 

Flatwoods Salamander; Designation of 

Critical Habitat for Frosted Flatwoods 

Salamander and Reticulated Flatwoods 

Salamander 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), finalize the 

listing under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act), of the 

currently threatened flatwoods 

salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) 

into two distinct species: Frosted 

flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma 

cingulatum) and reticulated flatwoods 

salamander (Ambystoma bishopi) due to 

a recognized taxonomic reclassification; 

determine endangered status for the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander; retain 

threatened status for the frosted 

flatwoods salamander; and designate 

critical habitat for the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander. In total, 

approximately 27,423 acres (ac) (11,100 

hectares (ha)) in 35 units or subunits fall 

within the boundaries of the critical 

habitat designation; 22,970 ac (9,297 ha) 

of critical habitat is designated for the 

frosted flatwoods salamander and 4,453 

ac (1,803 ha) for the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander. This area is a 

reduction of 3,205 ac (977 ha) from the 

proposed designation; 162 ac (66 ha) 

less for the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and 3,043 ac (928 ha) less 

for the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander. The critical habitat is 

located in Baker, Calhoun, Franklin, 

Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Liberty, 

Santa Rosa, Wakulla, Walton, and 

Washington Counties in Florida; Baker 

and Miller Counties in Georgia; and 

Berkeley, Charleston, and Jasper 

Counties in South Carolina. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective on 

March 12, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule and final 

economic analysis are available on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Supporting documentation we used in 

preparing this final rule is available for 

public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours, at U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi 

Fish and Wildlife Office, 6578 Dogwood 

View Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray 

Aycock, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Mississippi Field 

Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, 

Jackson, MS 39213; telephone: 601– 

321–1122; facsimile: 601–965–4340. If 

you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document consists of: (1) A final rule to 

change the listing of the currently 

threatened flatwoods salamander 

(Ambystoma cingulatum) to frosted 

flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma 

cingulatum) and reticulated flatwoods 

salamander (Ambystoma bishopi) (the 

frosted flatwoods salamander will 

continue to be listed as threatened and 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander is 

listed as endangered); and (2) final 

critical habitat designations for each 

species. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The flatwoods salamander was listed 

as threatened on April 1, 1999 (64 FR 

15691). At that time, we found that 

designation of critical habitat for the 

flatwoods salamander was not prudent 

because such designation would not be 

beneficial and may increase threats to 

the species. On April 1, 2005, Center for 

Biological Diversity, Wild South, and 

Florida Biodiversity Project filed a 

lawsuit against the Secretary of the 

Interior alleging failure to designate 

critical habitat for the flatwoods 

salamander. In a court-approved 

settlement agreement, we agreed to reevaluate the need for critical habitat for 

the species and, if prudent, submit a 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

to the Federal Register by January 30, 

2007, and submit a final critical habitat 

rule for publication in the Federal 

Register by January 30, 2008. We 

published a proposed rule to designate 

critical habitat for the flatwoods 

salamander in the Federal Register on 

February 7, 2007 (72 FR 5856). After 

that proposed rule published, new 

information became available on its 

taxonomic classification and additional 

threats to occupied habitat that 

necessitated a reevaluation of the 

proposed rule. On January 25, 2008, the 

court-approved settlement agreement 

was modified to require that a revised 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

the frosted flatwoods salamander and 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander be 

submitted for publication in the Federal 

Register on or before July 30, 2008, with 

the final critical habitat rule to be 

submitted for publication in the Federal 

Register by January 30, 2009. The 

revised proposed rule was signed on 

and delivered to the Federal Register on 

July 30, 2008, and it subsequently 

published on August 13, 2008 (73 FR 

47258). We also published 

supplemental information on the 

proposed rule to maintain the status of 

the frosted flatwoods salamander as 

threatened (73 FR 54125; September 18, 

2008). 

Public Comments 

Due to the nature of the proposed 

rule, we received combined comments 

from the public on the listing action and 

the critical habitat designation. 

Therefore, we have addressed these 

issues in a single comment section. In 

this final rule, we have presented the 

listing analysis first, followed by the 

analysis for designation of critical 

habitat. All public comments and our 

responses to them are presented under 

the Critical Habitat section. 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the taxonomic 

reclassification of the flatwoods 

salamander into two species, the frosted 

flatwoods salamander and the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander, the 

determination of the status of these two 

species, and the designation of critical 

habitat for both species. For more 

information on the biology and ecology 

of flatwoods salamanders, refer to the 

final listing rule published in the 

Federal Register on April 1, 1999 (64 FR 

15691). For information on our 

proposed determination of endangered 

status for the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander, and on the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

frosted flatwoods salamander and the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander, refer 

to the proposed rule published in the 

Federal Register on August 13, 2008 (73 

FR 47258). 

Taxonomic Classification 

The original listing rule (64 FR 15691; 

April 1, 1999) described the geographic 

range of the flatwoods salamander as it 

was known at that time. The range for 

the species included occurrences across 

the lower southeastern Coastal Plain in 

Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. 

Taxonomic revision resulted from 

research done by Pauly et al. (2007, pp. 

415–429) that suggested a taxonomic 

reclassification of the species by 

splitting the flatwoods salamander into 

two species—the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and the reticulated 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6701 

flatwoods salamander. The 

Apalachicola River drainage forms a 

geographic barrier between the two 

species. This drainage is a common site 

for east-west phylogeographic breaks in 

many other taxa as well. For this reason, 

the reclassification of the flatwoods 

salamander into two species is currently 

accepted by the scientific community 

and by the Service. We hereby amend 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reflect 

this revision to taxonomy. 

Goin (1950, p. 299) recognized two 

distinct subspecies of flatwoods 

salamander based on morphological and 

color pattern variation. This 

reclassification between the eastern and 

western portions of the salamander’s 

range was later discounted in an 

analysis by Martof and Gerhardt (1965, 

pp. 342–346) and for the past 40 years 

the concept of a single undifferentiated 

species persisted. Pauly et al. (2007, pp. 

415–429) conducted molecular and 

morphological analyses to test whether 

the flatwoods salamander, as originally 

described, followed a pattern of eastwest disjunction at the Apalachicola 

River as has been described in many 

other species. They were able to 

demonstrate this predicted 

phylogeographic break. Based on 

mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), 

morphology, and allozymes, they 

recognize two species of flatwoods 

salamanders, frosted flatwoods 

salamander to the east of the 

Apalachicola drainage and reticulated 

flatwoods salamander to the west. The 

Apalachicola River is probably the 

cause of major disjunctions in species 

distributions due to the repeated marine 

embayments during the Pliocene and 

Pleistocene interglacials that likely 

caused a barrier to gene flow. 

In the Pauly et al. (2007, pp. 415–429) 

analyses, the use of mtDNA splits 

flatwoods salamander populations into 

two major clades east and west of the 

Apalachicola-Flint rivers. Samples from 

Jackson and Liberty Counties, Florida, 

are informative because, geographically, 

they are located on opposite sides of the 

river but are phylogenetically distant 

with respect to mtDNA sequence 

divergence. In contrast, geographically 

distant populations on the same side of 

the Apalachicola River are very closely 

related. Their morphological analyses 

also support a taxonomic boundary at 

the Apalachicola-Flint rivers. 

Salamanders on opposite sides of this 

boundary significantly differed in both 

body shape and size based on 

multivariate analyses. The number of 

costal grooves (grooves along the side 

body of salamanders used in species 

identification), snout-vent length, six 

additional morphometric traits, and 

sexual dimorphisms in tail length, 

height, and width are all significantly 

different between the two taxa. Due to 

the importance of the tail in 

ambystomatid courtship and 

fertilization, tail differences may be 

particularly important (Duellman and 

Trueb 1986, pp. 64–66). 

Allozyme data presented in Shaffer et 

al. (1991, pp. 290–291, 302) also 

indicated differences between 

salamanders on either side of the 

Apalachicola River. Their results 

demonstrated these populations have 

fixed-allele differences, consistent with 

the mtDNA and morphological results. 

The frosted and reticulated flatwoods 

salamanders can be differentiated from 

each other by the use of several 

morphological characters (Pauly et al. 

2007, pp. 424–425). The frosted 

flatwoods salamander generally has 

more costal grooves and tends to be 

larger than the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander. For individuals of the same 

size, the frosted flatwoods salamander 

has longer forelimbs and hind limbs and 

a larger head. Male frosted flatwoods 

salamanders have longer tails than those 

of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. 

The belly pattern of the frosted 

flatwoods salamander consists of 

discrete white spots on a dark 

background, while the spots are less 

distinct in the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander giving a ‘‘salt and pepper’’ 

appearance (Goin 1950, pp. 300–314). 

The back pattern of the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander has a more netlike appearance than the frosted 

flatwoods salamander, as the common 

names imply. 

In summary, in the Regulation 

Promulgation section of this document, 

we present a taxonomic change 

reflecting the reclassification of 

flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma 

cingulatum) to frosted flatwoods 

salamander (A. cingulatum) and 

reticulated flatwoods salamander (A. 

bishopi). 

Listing of the Reticulated Flatwoods 

Salamander 

History of the Action 

On December 16, 1997, we published 

a proposed rule to list the flatwoods 

salamander as a threatened species (62 

FR 65787). We published the final rule 

to list the species on April 1, 1999 (64 

FR 15691). On August 13, 2008, we 

published the proposal to list the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander, 

currently known as the flatwoods 

salamander west of the ApalachicolaFlint Rivers, as a new species (73 FR 

47258). 

Species Information 

As far as we currently know, the life 

history traits and habitat use of both the 

frosted flatwoods salamander and the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander are 

similar to those previously described for 

the flatwoods salamander. Both species 

of flatwoods salamanders are 

moderately sized salamanders that are 

generally black to chocolate-black with 

fine, irregular, light gray lines and 

specks that form a cross-banded pattern 

across their backs (back pattern more 

net-like in the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander). The frosted flatwoods 

salamander generally tends to be larger 

than the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander, as described above. Adults 

are terrestrial and live underground 

most of the year. They breed in 

relatively small, isolated ephemeral 

ponds where the larvae develop until 

metamorphosis. Post-metamorphic 

salamanders migrate out of the ponds 

and into the uplands where they live 

until they move back to ponds to breed 

as adults. Both species of flatwoods 

salamander are endemic to the lower 

southeastern Coastal Plain and occur in 

what were historically longleaf pinewiregrass flatwoods and savannas (Palis 

and Means 2005, pp. 608–609). 

The historical range of what is now 

considered the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander included parts of the States 

of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia, which 

are in the lower Coastal Plain of the 

southeastern United States west of the 

Apalachicola-Flint Rivers. We have 

compiled 26 historical (pre-1990) 

records for the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander. 

In Alabama, there are five historical 

localities for the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander, all in the extreme southern 

portion of the State in Baldwin, 

Covington, Houston, and Mobile 

Counties. Surveys have been conducted 

at numerous sites since 1992; however, 

no reticulated flatwoods salamanders 

have been observed in Alabama since 

1981 (Jones et al. 1982, p. 51; Godwin 

2008). 

Two historical records for the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander are 

known from Georgia, one each in Baker 

and Early Counties. Site visits to the 

areas in the vicinity of these two records 

have indicated that there is no longer 

suitable habitat for flatwoods 

salamanders at these localities. The area 

of the Baker County record has been 

cleared for agriculture (LaClaire 1994b). 

The upland habitat surrounding the 

Early County record has been converted 

to home sites and agricultural fields 

(Seyle 1994, p. 4). Four new reticulated 

flatwoods salamander breeding ponds 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6702 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

have been discovered since 1990. One 

pond is on the Mayhaw Wildlife 

Management Area owned by the State of 

Georgia in Miller County. Three ponds 

are on private property in Baker County. 

Currently, two reticulated flatwoods 

salamander populations are supported 

by these breeding sites in Georgia. 

Nineteen historical (pre-1990) records 

for the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

are known for Florida. Reticulated 

flatwoods salamander breeding has been 

documented at only five (26 percent) of 

these sites since 1990. Extensive surveys 

throughout the range of the Ambystoma 

cingulatum, conducted prior to the 

original listing in 1999, resulted in 

identifying 39 additional breeding sites. 

Thirty-one (80 percent) of these sites are 

located in Okaloosa and Santa Rosa 

Counties, primarily on Department of 

Defense lands. Currently, 18 

populations of the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander are known from Florida. 

The combined data from all survey 

work completed since 1990 in Florida 

and Georgia indicate there are 20 

populations of the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander. Some of these populations 

are inferred from the capture of a single 

individual. Nine (45 percent) of the 

known reticulated flatwoods 

salamander populations occur, at least 

in part, on public land. Of these, 

Department of Defense lands in Florida 

harbor four populations of the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander at 

Eglin Air Force Base, Hurlburt Field, 

and Navy Outlying Landing Field 

Holley. State and local agencies in 

Florida and Georgia partially manage 

habitat for five additional populations 

and monitor breeding ponds. In Florida, 

Pine Log State Forest harbors a single 

population; Northwest Florida Water 

Management District (NWFLWMD) and 

Blackwater River State Forest share 

management of a single population; 

NWFLWMD and Yellow River Marsh 

Preserve State Park share management 

of most of another property supporting 

an additional population; and the Santa 

Rosa County School Board owns a 

portion of the habitat supporting a 

single population. In Georgia, the 

Mayhaw Wildlife Management Area 

supports a single population. Eleven (55 

percent) reticulated flatwoods 

salamander populations are solely on 

private land. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander 

Section 4 of the Act and regulations 

(50 CFR part 424) promulgated to 

implement the listing provisions of the 

Act set forth the procedures for adding 

species to Federal lists. A species may 

be determined to be an endangered or 

threatened species due to one or more 

of the five factors described in section 

4(a)(1). The original listing rule for the 

flatwoods salamander (64 FR 15691) 

contained a discussion of these five 

factors, as did the proposed rule (73 FR 

47258; August 13, 2008) and 

supplemental information (73 FR 54125; 

September 18, 2008). Only those factors 

relevant to the proposed reclassification 

of the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

(Ambystoma bishopi Goin, 1950) from 

threatened to endangered are described 

below: 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The major threat to the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander is loss of both its 

longleaf pine–slash pine flatwoods 

terrestrial habitat and its isolated, 

seasonally ponded breeding habitat. The 

combined pine flatwoods (longleaf 

pine–wiregrass flatwoods and slash pine 

flatwoods) historical area was 

approximately 32 million acres (ac) 

(12.8 million hectares (ha)) (Outcalt 

1997, p. 4). This area has been reduced 

to 5.6 million ac (2.27 million ha) or 

approximately 18 percent of its original 

extent (Outcalt 1997, p. 4). These 

remaining pine flatwoods (nonplantation forests) areas are typically 

fragmented, degraded, second-growth 

forests (Outcalt 1997, p. 6). Conversion 

of pine flatwoods to intensively 

managed (use of heavy mechanical site 

preparation, high stocking rates, and 

low fire frequencies) slash or loblolly 

plantations often resulted in 

degradation of flatwoods salamander 

habitat by creating well-shaded, closedcanopied forests with an understory 

dominated by shrubs or pine needles 

(Outcalt 1997, pp. 4–6; Palis 1997, pp. 

61–63). Disturbance-sensitive ground 

cover species, such as wiregrass 

(Aristida stricta [= A. beyrichiana] 

Kesler et al. 2003, p. 9), dropseed 

(Sporobolus spp.), and perennial forbs 

were either greatly reduced in extent or 

were replaced by weedy pioneering 

species (Moore et al. 1982, p. 216; 

Outcalt and Lewis 1988, pp. 1–12; 

Hardin and White 1989, pp. 243–244). 

In a study conducted by Hedman et al. 

(2000, p. 233), longleaf pine plots had 

significantly more herbaceous species 

and greater herbaceous cover than 

loblolly or slash pine plots. For 

example, wiregrass is often lost from a 

site when habitat is converted from 

longleaf pine forest to other habitat 

types using common mechanical site 

preparation methods (Outcalt and Lewis 

1988, p. 2). Loss of wiregrass is 

considered an indicator of site 

degradation from fire suppression or 

soil disturbance (Clewell 1989; pp. 226, 

230–232). Flatwoods salamanders are 

unlikely to persist in uplands with a 

disturbed, wiregrass-depauperate 

ground cover (Palis 1997, p. 63). 

Forest management that includes 

intensive site preparation may adversely 

affect flatwoods salamanders directly 

and indirectly (Means et al. 1996, p. 

426). Bedding (a technique in which a 

small ridge of surface soil is elevated as 

a planting bed) alters the surface soil 

layers, disrupts the site hydrology, and 

often eliminates the native herbaceous 

ground cover. This can have a cascading 

effect of reducing the invertebrate 

community that serves as a food source 

for flatwoods salamander adults. Postlarval and adult flatwoods salamanders 

occupy upland flatwoods sites where 

they live underground in crayfish 

burrows, root channels, or burrows of 

their own making (Goin 1950, p. 311; 

Neill 1951, p. 765; Mount 1975, pp. 98– 

99; Ashton and Ashton 2005, pp. 63, 65, 

68–71). The occurrence of these 

underground habitats is dependent 

upon protection of the soil structure. 

Intensive site preparation destroys the 

subterranean voids and may result in 

entombing, injuring, or crushing 

individuals. 

Ecologists consider fire suppression 

the primary reason for the degradation 

of remaining longleaf pine forest habitat. 

The disruption of the natural fire cycle 

has resulted in an increase in slash and 

loblolly pine on sites formerly 

dominated by longleaf pine, an increase 

in hardwood understory, and a decrease 

in herbaceous ground cover (Wolfe et al. 

1988, p. 132). Although reticulated 

flatwoods salamanders have been found 

at sites with predominately loblolly or 

slash pine, the long-term viability of 

populations at these sites is unknown. 

On public lands, prescribed burning is 

a significant part of habitat management 

plans. However, implementation of 

prescribed burning has been 

inconsistent due to financial constraints 

and limitations of weather (drought, 

wind direction, etc.) that restrict the 

number of opportunities to burn. 

These alterations of the longleaf pine 

ecosystem, as a result of incompatible 

forest practices, have caused historic 

losses of reticulated flatwoods 

salamander habitat. Conversion of 

native pine flatwoods to plantation 

forests is not considered a significant 

threat at this time. Forecasts indicate 

that most new plantation forests will 

come from converting agricultural fields 

(Wear and Greis 2002, p. 47). 

Nevertheless, we have documented the 

historic extirpation of at least one 

previously known population each from 

Gulf and Jackson Counties in Florida, 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6703 

over the last 4 decades because of 

habitat degradation on lands currently 

managed as pine plantations. In 

addition, ponds surrounded by pine 

plantations and protected from the 

natural fire regime may become 

unsuitable as reticulated flatwoods 

salamander breeding sites due to canopy 

closure and the resultant reduction in 

emergent herbaceous vegetation needed 

for egg deposition and larval 

development sites (Palis 1997, p. 62). In 

addition, lack of fire within the pond 

during periods of dry-down may result 

in chemical and physical (vegetative) 

changes that are unsuitable for the 

salamander (Palis 1997, p. 62). Lack of 

fire in the ecotone may result in the 

development of a thick shrub zone 

making it physically difficult or 

impossible for adult salamanders to 

enter the breeding ponds (Ripley and 

Printiss 2005, pp. 1–2, 11). 

Land use conversions to urban 

development and agriculture eliminated 

large areas of pine flatwoods in the past 

(Schultz 1983, pp. 24–47; Stout and 

Marion 1993, pp. 422–429; Outcalt and 

Sheffield 1996, pp. 1–5; Outcalt 1997, 

pp. 1–6). Urbanization and agriculture 

have resulted in the loss of one 

reticulated flatwoods salamander 

population from each of the following 

counties: Mobile and Baldwin Counties, 

Alabama; Escambia, Jackson, and 

Washington Counties, Florida; and Early 

County, Georgia. Two known 

populations have been extirpated from 

Santa Rosa County, Florida. State forest 

inventories completed between 1989 

and 1995 indicated that flatwoods losses 

through land use conversion were still 

occurring (Outcalt 1997, pp. 3–6). 

Urbanization in the panhandle of 

Florida and around major cities is 

reducing the available pine forest 

habitat. Wear and Greis (2002, pp. 47, 

92) identify conversion of forests to 

urban land uses as the most significant 

threat to southern forests. They predict 

that the South could lose about 12 

million ac (4.9 million ha) of pine forest 

habitat to urbanization between 1992 

and 2020. Several relatively recent 

discoveries of previously unknown 

reticulated flatwoods salamander 

breeding sites in Santa Rosa County, 

Florida, have been made in conjunction 

with wetland surveys associated with 

development projects (Cooper 2008a). 

No reticulated flatwoods salamanders 

have been observed at these degraded 

sites since completion of the projects 

(Cooper 2008a). 

In addition to the loss of upland 

forested habitat, the number and 

diversity of small wetlands where 

reticulated flatwoods salamanders breed 

have been substantially reduced. 

Threats to breeding sites include 

alterations in hydrology, agricultural 

and urban development, road 

construction, incompatible silvicultural 

practices, shrub encroachment, 

dumping in or filling of ponds, 

conversion of wetlands to fish ponds, 

domestic animal grazing, soil 

disturbance, and fire suppression 

(Vickers et al. 1985, pp. 22–26; Palis 

1997, p. 58; Ashton and Ashton 2005, p. 

72). Hydrological alterations, such as 

those resulting from ditches created to 

drain flatwoods sites or fire breaks and 

plow lines, represent one of the most 

serious threats to reticulated flatwoods 

salamander breeding sites. Lowered 

water levels and shortened 

hydroperiods at these sites may prevent 

successful flatwoods salamander 

recruitment because larval salamanders 

require 11 to 18 weeks to reach 

metamorphosis and leave the ponds 

(Palis 1995, p. 352). 

Drought conditions exacerbate other 

threats and, although they represent a 

natural phenomenon, can lower the 

resiliency of populations to withstand 

other man-made threats. The U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) has 

documented multiple drought periods 

in the southeastern United States since 

the 1890s (USGS 2000, p. 1). Significant 

drought periods documented in the last 

three decades are: 1980–1982, 1984– 

1989, 1998–2002, 2005–2008 (USGS 

1991, p. 163; USGS 2000, p. 1; Seager 

et al. 2008, pp. 2, 22). Although a 

naturally occurring condition, drought 

presents additional complications for a 

species, like reticulated flatwoods 

salamander, which has been extirpated 

from most of its historic range and for 

which populations are represented by 

single ponds. Palis et al. (2006, p. 5–6) 

conducted a study in Florida on a 

population of the closely related frosted 

flatwoods salamander during a drought 

from 1999–2002. This study found three 

consecutive years of reproductive 

failure and a steadily declining adult 

immigration to breed at the site as the 

drought progressed. 

Taylor et al. (2005, p. 792) noted that 

wide variation in reproductive success 

is common among pond-breeding 

amphibians that depend on seasonal 

filling of these areas, but that adult 

persistence may buffer against 

fluctuations in that success, particularly 

for species that are long-lived. Although 

Palis et al. (2006, p. 6) suggested that the 

flatwoods salamander may only live 

about 4 years (based on captive 

animals), we are currently unsure of the 

exact lifespan of wild individuals. Other 

sources have suggested 10 years may 

represent a maximum lifespan (Jensen 

2008). As a result, it is difficult to 

predict how long adults could persist in 

the landscape without a successful 

breeding event to replenish the 

population. However, Taylor et al. 

(2005, pp. 792, 796) constructed a 

model, based on extensive population 

data available for the marbled 

salamander (Ambystoma opacum), to 

look at how many years of reproductive 

failure would be required to result in 

local extinction of pond-breeding 

salamanders (with varying lifespans) 

and found that even without total 

reproductive failure, populations 

required moderate to high upland postmetamorphic survival to persist. 

Catastrophic failure in this study 

created fluctuations in the population, 

raised the threshold of survival required 

to achieve persistence, and imposed the 

possibility of extinction even under 

otherwise favorable environmental 

conditions. Reproductive failure was 

closely tied to hydrologic conditions; 

insufficient or short hydroperiod was 

the primary cause for complete failure. 

In addition, early filling of the ponds 

could also facilitate the establishment of 

invertebrate or vertebrate predators 

before hatching of the eggs (Taylor et al. 

2005, p. 796). 

Palis et al. (2006, p. 6–7) discussed 

the necessity of protecting clusters of 

flatwoods salamander breeding sites, 

especially those with different 

hydrologic regimes, to guard against 

population declines at any one breeding 

site resulting from random events, such 

as droughts (Palis 2006, p. 7). A cluster 

of breeding sites represents a 

metapopulation, which is defined as 

neighboring local populations close 

enough to one another that dispersing 

individuals could be exchanged (gene 

flow) at least once per generation. 

Currently, the only place where a 

metapopulation exists for the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander is on Eglin Air 

Force Base. 

Habitat fragmentation of the longleaf 

pine ecosystem resulting from habitat 

conversion threatens the survival of the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander. Large 

tracts of intact longleaf pine flatwoods 

habitat are fragmented by pine 

plantations, roads, and unsuitable 

habitat. Most reticulated flatwoods 

salamander populations are widely 

separated from each other by unsuitable 

habitat. This has been verified through 

recent reviews of aerial photography 

and site visits to localities of historical 

and current records for the species. 

Studies have shown that the loss of 

fragmented populations is common, and 

recolonization is critical for their 

regional survival (Fahrig and Merriam 

1994, pp. 50–56; Burkey 1995, pp. 527– 

540). Amphibian populations may be 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6704 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

unable to recolonize areas after local 

extirpations due to their physiological 

constraints, relatively low mobility, and 

site fidelity (Blaustein et al. 1994, pp. 

60, 67–68). In the case of the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander, 70 percent of 

populations only have one breeding 

pond and if the habitat at that one site 

is destroyed, recolonization would be 

impossible (see further discussion of 

metapopulation dynamics under Factor 

E). 

Roads contribute to habitat 

fragmentation by isolating blocks of 

remaining contiguous habitat. They may 

disrupt migration routes and dispersal 

of individuals to and from breeding 

sites. Road construction can result in 

changes in hydrology and destruction of 

breeding ponds, as described above. In 

addition, vehicles may also cause the 

death of reticulated flatwoods 

salamanders when they are attempting 

to cross roads (Means 1996, p. 2). Road 

construction resulted in the destruction 

of a historic reticulated flatwoods 

salamander breeding pond in Escambia 

County, Florida (Palis 1997, p. 62). A 

road through Eglin Air Force Base 

(Eglin) and Hurlburt Field has been 

proposed by the Northwest Florida 

Transportation Corridor Authority 

(NWFTCA) (NWFTCA 2007). We are 

currently in consultation regarding this 

bypass project. The conceptually 

approved route for the project, as 

currently proposed, places the road 

adjacent to or through 22 breeding sites 

that support the largest reticulated 

flatwoods salamander population 

(Mittiga 2007). However, the Service has 

been assured by Eglin that they will not 

allow negative impacts to the 

salamander’s habitat and that they will 

continue to ensure the conservation of 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

(Department of the Air Force (DoAF) 

2008a, p. 1; 2008b, p. 1). The Service 

will work with Eglin to protect these 

breeding sites which represent the only 

population of this species supported by 

more than three breeding ponds and 

functioning as a metapopulation. 

In summary, the loss of habitat is a 

significant threat to the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander. This threat is 

compounded by current drought 

conditions and the nature of pondbreeding salamanders to undergo 

periodic reproductive failure. We 

consider this threat to be imminent and 

of high magnitude because of this 

species’ narrow range and the rapid rate 

of habitat loss that is currently occurring 

within the range of this species. 

Thirteen (65 percent) of the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander populations are 

partly or completely on private land 

where habitat continues to be degraded 

by management that frequently includes 

fire suppression and intensive site 

preparation that alters surface soil 

layers, disrupts site hydrology, disturbs 

the ground cover, and which has the 

potential to entomb, injure, or crush 

individual salamanders. Forest 

management conducted in this way is 

considered incompatible for 

maintaining flatwoods salamander 

populations. Range-wide historic losses 

of both upland and wetland habitat have 

occurred due to conversion of flatwoods 

sites to agriculture, urban development, 

and intensively managed pine 

plantations. The remaining flatwoods 

habitat continues to be threatened by 

fire suppression and other incompatible 

forest management practices, road 

construction, and habitat fragmentation 

across the range of the species. 

Localized threats to existing wetland 

breeding sites include alterations in 

hydrology from agriculture, urban 

development, road construction, and 

incompatible forest management; and 

fire suppression. As a result, we have 

determined that the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander’s habitat and range 

represents an imminent and significant 

threat to the species. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Overcollecting does not appear to be 

a threat to the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander at this time. There is no 

evidence of a past or current problem 

with collection of this species. 

Consequently, we have determined that 

the factor of overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes is not a threat to 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander at 

this time. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Although disease has not been 

specifically documented in the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander thus 

far, disease outbreaks with mass 

mortality in other species of 

salamanders indicate that disease may 

be a threat for this species as well 

(Daszak et al. 1999, p. 736). ‘‘Red-leg’’ 

disease (Aeromonas hydrophila), a 

pathogen bacterium, caused mortality of 

the mole salamander (A. talpoideum) at 

the breeding pond of the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander in Miller County, 

Georgia (Maerz 2006), and reticulated 

flatwoods salamanders have not been 

observed at this site since the disease 

was reported. In addition, Whiles et al. 

(2004, p. 211) found a parasitic 

nematode (Hedruris siredonis, family 

Hedruridae) in larvae of the closely 

related frosted flatwoods salamander 

from South Carolina and Florida. This 

parasite has been found in other 

ambystomatids and can cause 

individuals to become undersized and 

thin, thus reducing their fitness (Whiles 

et al. 2004, p. 212). The infestations 

were not considered heavy and were 

probably not having a negative impact 

on the larvae studied; however, 

environmental degradation may change 

the dynamics between salamander 

populations and normally innocuous 

parasites (Whiles et al. 2004, p. 212). 

Ranaviruses in the family Iridoviridae 

and the amphibian chytrid fungus 

(Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) may 

be other potential threats, although the 

susceptibility of the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander to these diseases 

is unknown. Ranaviruses have been 

responsible for die-offs of tiger 

salamanders throughout western North 

America and spotted salamanders (A. 

maculatum) in Maine (Daszak et al. 

1999, p. 736). Chytrid fungus has been 

discovered and associated with mass 

mortality in tiger salamanders in 

southern Arizona and California, and 

the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander (A. 

macrodactylum croceum) (Vredenburg 

and Summers 2001, p. 151; Davidson et 

al. 2003, p. 601; Padgett-Flohr and 

Longcore 2005, p. 50). This discussion 

of disease in other species of closely 

related salamanders indicates the 

potential existence of similar threats to 

reticulated flatwoods salamander 

populations. 

Exposure to increased predation by 

fish is a threat to the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander when isolated, 

seasonally ponded wetland breeding 

sites are changed to or connected to 

more permanent wetlands inhabited by 

fish species not typically found in 

temporary ponds. Studies of other 

ambystomatid species have 

demonstrated a decline in larval 

survival in the presence of predatory 

fish (Semlitsch 1987, p. 481). Ponds 

may be modified specifically to serve as 

fish ponds or sites may be altered 

because of drainage ditches, firebreaks, 

or vehicle tracks that can all provide 

avenues for fish to enter the wetlands. 

Red imported fire ants (Solenopsis 

invicta) are potential predators of 

flatwoods salamanders, especially in 

disturbed areas. They have been seen in 

areas disturbed by the installation of 

drift fences at known breeding sites of 

the closely related frosted flatwoods 

salamander (Palis 2008). The severity 

and magnitude, as well as the long-term 

effect, of fire ants on reticulated 

flatwoods salamander populations are 

currently unknown. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6705 

In summary, diseases of amphibians 

in the southeastern United States 

remain largely unstudied. However, 

given the incidence of disease in species 

that could be considered surrogates for 

flatwoods salamanders, the probability 

exists for similar infections to occur in 

reticulated flatwoods salamander 

populations. We consider this to be an 

imminent threat of moderate magnitude. 

Predation by fish is a historic threat that 

continues to be a localized problem 

when ditches, firebreaks, or vehicle ruts 

provide connections allowing the 

movement of fish from permanent water 

bodies into reticulated flatwoods 

salamander breeding sites. Sixty-five 

percent of reticulated flatwoods 

salamander breeding ponds are partly or 

completely on private land. This 

situation increases the probability of 

fish being introduced to a breeding site, 

which would then cause the breeding 

habitat to become unsuitable and result 

in the extinction of the population. Fire 

ants also have the potential of being a 

localized threat, particularly in 

disturbed areas. In addition, we believe 

that the threats described here would 

also act to exacerbate other threats to the 

species. Overall, we consider the threat 

within this factor to be imminent and of 

moderate magnitude because 70 percent 

of reticulated flatwoods salamander 

populations are supported by a single 

breeding pond; diseases and fish and 

invertebrate predators have been found 

at ponds within the species’ range; and 

these diseases and predators are known 

to cause mortality or reproductive 

failure in related species. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

There are no existing regulatory 

mechanisms for the protection of the 

upland habitats where reticulated 

flatwoods salamanders spend most of 

their lives. Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act is the primary Federal law 

that has the potential to provide some 

protection for the wetland breeding sites 

of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. 

However, due to recent case law (Solid 

Waste Agency of Northern Cook County 

(SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers 531 U.S. 159 (2001); Rapanos 

v. United States 547 U.S. 715 (2006)), 

isolated wetlands are no longer 

considered to be under Federal 

jurisdiction (not regulatory wetlands). 

Wetlands are only considered to be 

under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) if a 

‘‘significant nexus’’ exists to a navigable 

waterway or its tributaries. Currently, 

some Corps Districts do not coordinate 

with us on flatwoods salamanders and, 

since isolated wetlands are not 

considered under their jurisdiction, they 

are often not included on maps in 

permit applications (Brooks 2008). We 

are aware of two isolated wetlands that 

supported reticulated flatwoods 

salamander populations that have been 

lost since 2006 under this scenario. 

Longleaf pine habitat management 

plans have been written for public lands 

occupied by the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander. They include management 

plans for State-owned lands and 

integrated natural resource management 

plans (INRMPs) for Department of 

Defense lands. Most of the plans contain 

specific goals and objectives regarding 

habitat management that would benefit 

reticulated flatwoods salamanders 

including prescribed burning. However, 

because multiple-use is the guiding 

principle on most public land, 

protection of the flatwoods salamander 

may be just one of many management 

goals including timber production and 

military and recreational use. 

At the State and local levels, 

regulatory mechanisms are limited. 

Although not listed as threatened or 

endangered in Alabama, the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander is listed among 

those nongame species for which it is 

‘‘unlawful to take, capture, kill, or 

attempt to take, capture or kill; possess, 

sell, trade for anything of monetary 

value, or offer to sell or trade for 

anything of monetary value’’ (Alabama 

Department of Conservation and Natural 

Resources 2008, p. 1). The flatwoods 

salamander is listed as a threatened 

species in the State of Georgia (Jensen 

1999, pp. 92–93). This designation 

protects the species by preventing its 

sale, purchase, or possession in Georgia 

and by prohibiting actions that cause 

direct mortality or the destruction of its 

habitat on lands owned by the State of 

Georgia (Ozier 2008). There is only one 

known flatwoods salamander 

population on lands owned by the State 

of Georgia, and that is Mayhaw Wildlife 

Management Area. In 2001, the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (FFWCC) listed the 

flatwoods salamander (which would 

include the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander) as a species of special 

concern (FFWCC 2007, p. 2) and 

prohibited direct take except through 

permit. As part of the listing process, a 

statewide management plan was 

developed for the salamander in Florida 

(FFWCC 2001, p. 1–60). This plan sets 

an ambitious conservation goal of 

maintaining at least 129 self-sustaining 

populations of flatwoods salamanders 

(which would include both frosted and 

reticulated flatwoods salamander 

species) in Florida. The plan also 

outlines a monitoring plan for 

population status assessment, an 

implementation strategy for the 

management of populations, and areas 

for future research. The Alabama and 

Florida regulations offer no protection 

against the most significant threat to the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander, loss 

of habitat. 

In summary, existing regulatory 

mechanisms provide little direct 

protection of reticulated flatwoods 

salamander habitat, the loss of which is 

the most significant threat to the 

species. Reticulated flatwoods 

salamander breeding sites may in some 

instances come under the jurisdiction of 

the Corps, but most often they are 

provided little regulatory protection. 

These inadequacies represent rangewide historic and known threats to the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander on 

private lands within the range. We 

consider this threat as imminent 

because the existing regulations are not 

protecting against the other imminent 

threats to the species. Also, this threat 

is of high magnitude because of the 

small range of the species, and because 

65 percent of populations are not 

protected from further development 

because they are located partially or 

completely on private lands. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Metapopulations are important to the 

long-term survival of temporary pond 

breeding amphibians. In these species, 

such as the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander, breeding ponds may differ 

in the frequency of their ability to 

support amphibian reproduction. As a 

result, extirpation and colonization rates 

can be a function of pond spatial 

arrangement as well as local habitat 

quality (Marsh and Trenham 2001, p. 

41). Of the 20 known reticulated 

flatwoods salamanders populations, 

only 6 (30 percent) are supported by 

more than one breeding pond and only 

one (5 percent) population (on EglinHurlburt Field) is supported by more 

than three breeding ponds. For 70 

percent (14 out of 20) of the known 

reticulated flatwoods salamander 

populations, any one of the many 

threats that may render a breeding pond 

unsuitable could cause the extirpation 

of the affected population. 

Invasive plant species, such as 

cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), 

threaten to further degrade existing 

flatwoods habitat. Cogongrass, a 

perennial grass native to Southeast Asia, 

is one of the leading threats to the 

ecological integrity of native herbaceous 

flora, including that in the longleaf pine 

ecosystem (Jose et al. 2002, p. 43). 

Cogongrass can displace most of the 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6706 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

existing vegetation except large trees. 

Especially threatening to the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander is the ability of 

cogongrass to outcompete wiregrass, a 

key vegetative component of flatwoods 

salamander habitat. Changing the 

species composition in this way can 

alter the soil chemistry, nutrient 

cycling, and hydrology of an infested 

site (Jose et al. 2002, p. 43). Reticulated 

flatwoods salamander habitat 

management plans will need to address 

threats posed by cogongrass and other 

invasive plant species and include 

strategies to control them. An integrated 

management approach to controlling 

cogongrass is outlined in Jose et al. 

(2002, p. 42). 

Pesticides (including herbicides) may 

pose a threat to amphibians, such as the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander, 

because their permeable eggs and skin 

readily absorb substances from the 

surrounding aquatic or terrestrial 

environment (Duellman and Trueb 

1986, pp. 199–200). Negative effects that 

commonly used pesticides and 

herbicides may have on amphibians 

include delayed metamorphosis, 

paralysis, reduced growth rate, and 

mortality (Bishop 1992, pp. 67–69). In 

addition, herbicides used near 

reticulated flatwoods salamander 

breeding ponds may alter the density 

and species composition of vegetation 

surrounding a breeding site and reduce 

the number of potential sites for egg 

deposition, larval development, or 

shelter for migrating salamanders. 

However, if application by aerial 

spraying is avoided, the potential for 

negative effects from pesticide and 

herbicide use in areas adjacent to 

breeding ponds would be reduced 

(Tatum 2004, p. 1047). Herbicides may 

be a necessary tool to reduce or 

eliminate woody vegetation or invasive 

plants when the use of prescribed fire is 

not possible or effective (Jensen 2007, 

Wigley 2008). Nevertheless, pesticides 

should not be used in flatwoods 

salamander habitat unless no other 

habitat management tool is available; 

herbicide label directions should be 

followed closely; and aerial spraying 

should never be used as an application 

technique. Under these conditions, we 

consider this threat to be of moderate 

magnitude. 

Studies of other ambystomatid species 

have demonstrated a decline in larval 

survival in the presence of predatory 

fish, as mentioned above under Factor 

C. One of the potential reasons for this 

decline may be the negative effect 

resulting from these fish competing with 

salamander larvae for invertebrate prey. 

The invertebrates found by Whiles et al. 

(2004, p. 212) in a study of larval frosted 

and reticulated flatwoods salamander 

gut contents are typical of freshwater 

habitats in the Southeast that do not 

contain predatory fish on a regular 

basis. The presence of predatory fish has 

a marked effect on invertebrate 

communities and alters prey availability 

for larval salamanders with the potential 

for negative effects on larval fitness and 

survival (Semlitsch 1987, p. 481). 

Wherever connections have been 

created between permanent water and 

flatwoods salamander ponds, such as 

through installation of firebreaks or 

ditches, this threat from predatory fish 

exists. 

Studies of reticulated flatwoods 

salamander populations, since the 

original species listing of flatwoods 

salamander as threatened (64 FR 15691; 

April 1, 1999), have been limited due to 

drought. Data on the numbers of adults 

within existing populations do not exist. 

However, given the low number of 

individuals encountered even when 

breeding is verified, populations are 

likely to be very small at any given 

breeding site. Small populations are at 

increased threat of extirpation from 

natural processes (genetic isolation, 

inbreeding depression, and drought), as 

well as the manmade threats listed 

above. 

In summary, a variety of other natural 

or manmade factors historically or 

currently threaten, or have the potential 

to threaten, the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander. The loss of metapopulation 

structure in the distribution of 

reticulated flatwoods salamander 

populations was a range-wide threat 

that caused historic losses of this 

species. It continues to be a current 

threat for 70 percent of the remaining 

reticulated flatwoods salamander 

populations. Fire suppression and 

inadequate habitat management 

continue to cause the degradation of 

occupied sites, primarily on private 

land. Invasive plant species probably 

did not have much of a historic impact 

on salamander populations, but they are 

a range-wide current threat, and they are 

likely to become more widespread and 

difficult to control. Range-wide, low 

densities of individuals in a given 

population have been a historic threat 

and continue to be a threat for most 

reticulated flatwoods salamander 

populations, particularly due to past 

and current drought conditions, habitat 

loss, population fragmentation, and 

periodic reproductive failures that occur 

naturally in pond-breeding amphibians. 

The impact that competing predators 

may have on the salamander’s prey 

base, and the threat of pesticide and 

herbicide use, are less clear as historic 

threats but remain potential localized 

threats for the species. Therefore, while 

we have determined that other natural 

and manmade factors, such as invasive 

species, pesticides, and competition for 

the species’ prey base may threaten the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander, the 

severity and magnitude of these threats 

are not currently known. Acting in 

coordination with threats listed above 

under Factors A through D, the threats 

under Factor E could increase the 

severity of the other threats. In addition, 

small population size is particularly 

detrimental when combined with 

habitat loss, the ongoing drought, and 

the nature of this pond-breeding 

amphibian to experience periodic 

reproductive failure. 

Determination 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander. In summary, the 

most significant historical threat to the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander, as 

listed above in Factor A, is loss of its 

habitat. However, a variety of localized 

threats described under Factors A, C, D, 

and E continue to impact the remaining 

reticulated flatwoods salamander 

populations and their habitat. These 

include alterations in the hydrology of 

existing wetland breeding sites 

(including ‘‘ditching,’’ which can result 

in the introduction of predatory fish), 

urban development, road construction, 

incompatible forest management, fire 

suppression, and disease. The severity 

and magnitude of threats under Factor 

E are not currently known. 

Nevertheless, we have determined that 

threats under this factor will exacerbate 

the effects of threats due to habitat loss 

and drought. As described in Factor E 

above, small populations are at 

increased threat of extirpation from 

natural processes (genetic isolation, 

inbreeding depression, and drought), as 

well as the manmade threats listed 

above. Furthermore, as described in 

Factor D (above), existing regulatory 

mechanisms provide little direct 

protection of reticulated flatwoods 

salamander habitat, the loss of which is 

the most significant threat to the 

species. Reticulated flatwoods 

salamander breeding sites may in some 

instances come under the jurisdiction of 

the Corps, but most often they are 

provided little regulatory protection. 

This is likely the reason that two 

populations were lost recently to 

development. These inadequacies of 

existing regulatory mechanisms 

addressing habitat loss represent rangewide historic and potential threats to 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6707 

Finally, there are potential localized 

threats from fire ants, pesticides, and 

invasive plants for which the extent of 

impact is yet undeterminable, but we 

believe they are legitimate threats due to 

both their impact on surrogate species 

and their prevalence in the types of 

habitats used by this species. 

Only 20 reticulated flatwoods 

salamander populations are known. 

Fourteen (70 percent) of these 

populations are supported by only one 

breeding site. A population with only 

one breeding site has a tenuous future 

just given randomly varying 

environmental factors without 

considering the additional threats of 

habitat destruction and degradation that 

further threaten these populations. As 

noted previously, the habitat within the 

range of the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander is currently experiencing 

drought conditions. Palis et al. (2006, p. 

5–6) studied a frosted flatwoods 

salamander population in Florida 

during a drought from 1999–2002. This 

study documented three consecutive 

years of reproductive failure and a 

steady decline in adult immigration to 

the site for breeding as the drought 

progressed. Catastrophic reproductive 

failure occurs even in healthy 

populations of pond-breeding 

amphibians. When it does occur, the 

modeling efforts of Taylor et al. (2005, 

p. 796) showed that each year of 

reproductive failure raises the threshold 

of survival required to achieve 

persistence and imposes the possibility 

of extirpation even under otherwise 

favorable environmental conditions. 

Taylor et al. (2005, p. 799) reminds us 

that, particularly with small populations 

or low population growth rates (as exists 

with the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander), the effects of reproductive 

failure are made worse by demographic 

stochasticity. Even in populations with 

multiple breeding ponds, amphibian 

populations may be unable to recolonize 

areas after local extirpations due to their 

physiological constraints, relatively low 

mobility, and site fidelity (Blaustein et 

al. 1994, pp. 60, 67–68). In the case of 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander, 70 

percent of populations have only one 

breeding pond. If the habitat at that site 

is destroyed, recolonization would be 

impossible and the population 

supported by that breeding pond would 

be extirpated. Since the early 1990s, 

four reticulated flatwoods salamander 

populations have been lost, two 

populations due to urbanization and 

two populations due to incompatible 

forest management (Palis 2006, Cooper 

and LaClaire 2007, Cooper 2008b). The 

most robust reticulated flatwoods 

salamander population remaining is 

located on Eglin. Continued 

conservation of this locality is 

imperative because it represents habitat 

for the only population that is 

supported by more than three breeding 

ponds and functions as a 

metapopulation. In other words, this 

population has the best chance of 

surviving demographic and 

environmental stochasticity given that 

the distribution of breeding sites is 

within the dispersal distance of adult 

reticulated flatwoods salamanders. 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we have 

determined that the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Endangered status 

reflects the vulnerability of this species 

to factors that negatively affect the 

species and its limited and restricted 

habitat. Habitat loss on private lands is 

an imminent threat that is compounded 

by a variety of other factors. Fire 

suppression on private lands occupied 

by the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

represents one of the biggest threats to 

the species’ habitat and the continued 

existence of the species on these sites. 

In addition, since 1999 we have lost at 

least two reticulated flatwoods 

salamander breeding ponds due to the 

threat of inadequate existing regulatory 

mechanisms. We believe the destruction 

of these ponds was a result of the 

continuing threat that isolated wetlands 

are rarely, if ever, under the jurisdiction 

of the Corps. We believe that, combined, 

the effect of the historical and ongoing 

drought; historical, current, and 

projected habitat loss and degradation; 

and the exacerbating effects of disease, 

predation, small population size, and 

isolation result in the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander being in danger of 

extinction throughout all of its range. 

We believe these threats, in particular 

the threats from habitat loss and 

drought, to be imminent and are 

projected to continue at the current rate 

or increase in the future. Further, we 

have determined that these threats are 

operating on the species and its habitat 

with a high degree of magnitude in that 

they affect the species throughout all of 

its range and with a high degree of 

severity, as discussed above. 

Listing of the Frosted Flatwoods 

Salamander 

History of the Action 

The final rule to list the flatwoods 

salamander as threatened was published 

on April 1, 1999 (64 FR 15691). On 

August 13, 2008, we published a 

proposed rule to reclassify the listing of 

the species into two distinct species: 

Frosted flatwoods salamander and 

reticulated flatwoods salamander due to 

new taxonomic information (73 FR 

47258). In that proposed rule, we 

provided the analysis of the threats for 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

and our determination of its endangered 

status. On September 18, 2008, we 

published a notice providing 

supplemental information to the 

proposed rule that included our analysis 

and determination to retain threatened 

status for the frosted flatwoods 

salamander (73 FR 54125). 

Species Information 

Taxonomic revision resulting from 

research done by Pauly et al. (2007, pp. 

415–429) split the flatwoods salamander 

into two species—the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander. Background 

information on flatwoods salamanders, 

a discussion of their taxonomic status, 

and the five-factor analysis and 

associated determination of endangered 

status for the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander are provided above. 

Information provided here, and in the 

analysis that follows, will only address 

issues specific to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander. 

Based on the best available 

information, the life-history traits and 

habitat use of both the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander are similar to 

those previously described for the 

flatwoods salamander (64 FR 15691, 

April 1, 1999; 73 FR 47258, August 13, 

2008). However, most of our references 

predate Pauly et al. (2007, p. 415) and, 

therefore, do not distinguish between 

the two species. 

Flatwoods salamanders are endemic 

to the lower southeastern Coastal Plain 

and occur in what were historically 

longleaf pine-wiregrass flatwoods and 

savannas. The historical range of what 

is now considered the frosted flatwoods 

salamander included parts of the States 

of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. 

This area encompassed the lower 

Coastal Plain of the southeastern United 

States along the Gulf Coast east of the 

Apalachicola-Flint Rivers, across north 

Florida, south into north-central 

Florida, and north along the Atlantic 

Coast through coastal Georgia and South 

Carolina. 

We have compiled 84 historical (pre1990) records for the frosted flatwoods 

salamander. Twenty historical records 

(with supporting locality information) 

for the frosted flatwoods salamander are 

known from eight counties in Florida. 

Frosted flatwoods salamander breeding 

has been documented at only four (20 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6708 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

percent) of these sites since 1990. 

Surveys conducted since 1990 by 

Federal and State agency personnel, as 

well as private parties, have resulted in 

the identification of more than 50 

additional frosted flatwoods salamander 

breeding sites, including two sites in 

Jefferson County, a county that 

previously was not known to be 

occupied by the salamander. Most of 

these new breeding sites are located on 

the Apalachicola and Osceola National 

Forests, and on St. Marks National 

Wildlife Refuge. One site, discovered in 

1998 on Tate’s Hell State Forest, has 

been degraded as a result of habitat 

modification efforts that created a more 

permanently flooded wetland and 

flooded the ecotone at the historic 

breeding pond. The upland habitat is 

degraded as well with the result that the 

primary constituent elements (PCEs) on 

the site are no longer present (Enge 

2008). Fifteen populations of the frosted 

flatwoods salamander are known from 

Baker, Franklin, Jefferson, Liberty, and 

Wakulla Counties in Florida. 

Thirty-four historical records for the 

frosted flatwoods salamander are known 

from 20 counties in Georgia. Frosted 

flatwoods salamanders have not been 

seen again at any of these sites in recent 

years; however, surveys conducted 

since 1990 have resulted in the 

discovery of 23 new breeding sites. All 

but one of these new sites are located on 

the Fort Stewart Military Installation. 

The one additional pond was 

discovered on the Townsend Bombing 

Range. Currently, these breeding sites 

support six frosted flatwoods 

salamander populations in Bryan, 

Evans, Liberty, and McIntosh Counties, 

Georgia, all on Department of Defense 

lands. The frosted flatwoods salamander 

is assumed to be extirpated from 16 

other counties in Georgia where it 

previously occurred. However, some 

suitable habitat still remains on the 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge 

and the potential exists for the species 

to occur there. 

Thirty historical records for the 

frosted flatwoods salamander are known 

from five counties in South Carolina. 

Since 1990, metamorphic frosted 

flatwoods salamanders have been 

documented at six (21 percent) of these 

sites, and one new breeding site has 

been discovered. Currently, four 

populations of the frosted flatwoods 

salamander are known from Berkeley, 

Charleston, and Jasper Counties in 

South Carolina. Two populations are on 

private land in Jasper County: One 

population occurs on the Francis 

Marion National Forest in Berkeley 

County, and one population occurs on 

the Santee Coastal Preserve (stateowned and managed) in Charleston 

County. 

The combined data from all survey 

work completed since 1990 in Florida, 

Georgia, and South Carolina indicate 

there are 25 populations of the frosted 

flatwoods salamander. Some of these 

populations are inferred from the 

capture of a single individual. Twentytwo (88 percent) of the known frosted 

flatwoods salamander populations occur 

primarily on public land. Sixteen of the 

populations (64 percent of total 

populations of the species) on public 

land represent metapopulations 

supported by more than one breeding 

site. A single population occurs on each 

of the following publicly owned sites: 

Osceola National Forest in Florida; 

Townsend Bombing Range in Georgia; 

and Francis Marion National Forest and 

Santee Coastal Reserve in South 

Carolina. In Florida, habitat supports 10 

populations on Apalachicola National 

Forest and 2 populations on St. Marks 

National Wildlife Refuge. In Georgia, 

five populations occur on Fort Stewart 

Military Installation. Three (12 percent) 

frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations are solely on private land. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species (Frosted Flatwoods 

Salamander) 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.) and regulations (50 CFR part 

424) promulgated to implement the 

listing provisions of the Act set forth the 

procedures for adding species to the 

Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A 

species may be determined to be 

endangered or threatened due to one or 

more of the five factors described in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The original 

listing rule for the flatwoods salamander 

(64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999), and the 

supplement to the August 2008 

proposed rule (73 FR 54125; September 

18, 2008), contain a discussion of these 

five factors. Only those factors relevant 

to the frosted flatwoods salamander 

(Ambystoma cingulatum Cope, 1867) 

are described below: 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The major historical threat to the 

frosted flatwoods salamander was loss 

of habitat, both its longleaf pine-slash 

pine flatwoods terrestrial habitat and its 

isolated, seasonally ponded breeding 

habitat. Refer above to Factor A under 

‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species (Reticulated Flatwoods 

Salamander)’’ for general information on 

threats to pine flatwoods habitat that 

also applies to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander. 

Degradation of the remaining frosted 

flatwoods salamander habitat in Florida, 

Georgia, and South Carolina is a current, 

ongoing threat, primarily on private 

land. Ecologists consider fire 

suppression the primary reason for the 

degradation of remaining longleaf pine 

forest habitat. The disruption affects 

both the upland forested habitat of adult 

salamanders and their ponded breeding 

habitat also required for development of 

larval salamanders. Alterations of the 

longleaf pine ecosystem, as a result of 

incompatible forest practices, have 

caused the historic loss of most of the 

original frosted flatwoods salamander 

habitat. Conversion of native pine 

flatwoods to plantation forests is not 

considered a significant threat at this 

time. However, much of the historic 

extirpation of frosted flatwoods 

populations in Florida, Georgia, and 

South Carolina over the last six decades 

resulted from habitat degradation on 

lands managed for timber extraction. 

Land use conversions to housing, 

other development projects, and 

agriculture eliminated large areas of 

pine flatwoods in the past (Schultz 

1983, pp. 24–47; Stout and Marion 

1993, pp. 422–429; Outcalt and 

Sheffield 1996, pp. 1–5; Outcalt 1997, 

pp. 1–6). Residential development and 

conversion to agriculture have resulted 

in the historical loss of one frosted 

flatwoods salamander population each 

from Ben Hill, Berrien, Brooks, 

Effingham, Emanuel, and Irwin 

Counties, Georgia (Seyle 1994, pp. 4–5); 

an additional site has been degraded in 

Orangeburg County, South Carolina, and 

the population at this site is also 

considered extirpated (LaClaire 1994a). 

State forest inventories completed 

between 1989 and 1995 indicated that 

flatwoods losses through land use 

conversion were still occurring (Outcalt 

1997, pp. 3–6); however, further 

conversions are only likely to impact 

three of the populations occurring in 

large part on private lands or only 12 

percent of the total frosted flatwoods 

salamander populations. 

In addition to the loss of upland 

forested habitat, the number and 

diversity of small wetlands where 

frosted flatwoods salamanders breed 

have been substantially reduced. 

Threats to breeding sites include 

alterations in hydrology, agricultural 

and urban development, road 

construction, incompatible silvicultural 

practices, shrub encroachment, 

dumping in or filling of ponds, 

conversion of wetlands to fish ponds, 

domestic animal grazing, soil 

disturbance, and fire suppression 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6709 

(Vickers et al. 1985, pp. 22–26; Palis 

1997, p. 58; Ashton and Ashton 2005, p. 

72). As described above (see Species 

Information), the unintentional result of 

hydrological restoration on Tate’s Hell 

State Forest was the destruction of the 

ephemeral nature of a reticulated 

flatwoods salamander breeding site and 

the extinction of the salamander 

population on that site. 

Drought conditions exacerbate other 

threats, and although they represent a 

natural phenomenon, can lower the 

resiliency of populations to withstand 

other man-made threats. The U.S. 

Geological Survey (USGS) has 

documented multiple drought periods 

in the southeastern United States since 

the 1890s (USGS 2000, p. 1). Among 

significant periods documented in the 

last three decades are: 1980–1982, 

1984–1989, 1998–2002, 2005–2008 

(USGS 1991, p. 163; USGS 2000, p. 1; 

Seager et al. 2008, pp. 2, 22). Although 

drought is a naturally occurring 

condition, it presents additional 

complications for a species like the 

frosted flatwoods salamander, which 

has been extirpated from most of its 

historic range. Palis et al. (2006, p. 5– 

6) conducted a study in Florida on a 

population of the frosted flatwoods 

salamander during a drought from 

1999–2002. This study found 3 

consecutive years of reproductive 

failure and a steadily declining adult 

immigration to breed at the site as the 

drought progressed. 

Palis et al. (2006, p. 6–7) discussed 

the necessity of protecting clusters of 

flatwoods salamander breeding sites, 

especially those with different 

hydrologic regimes, to guard against 

population declines at any one breeding 

site resulting from random events, such 

as droughts. Currently, 15 populations 

of the frosted flatwoods salamander, 

occurring on public land, are supported 

by multiple breeding sites. 

Habitat fragmentation of the longleaf 

pine ecosystem resulting from habitat 

conversion is primarily a historical 

threat to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander. Large tracts of intact 

longleaf pine flatwoods habitat are 

fragmented by pine plantations, roads, 

and unsuitable habitat. Although the 

threat of ongoing habitat fragmentation 

has slowed, the effect of past habitat 

loss is that many frosted flatwoods 

salamander populations are widely 

separated from each other by unsuitable 

habitat. This has been verified through 

recent reviews of aerial photography 

and site visits to localities of historical 

and current records for the species. 

Studies have shown that the loss of 

fragmented populations is common, and 

recolonization is critical for their 

regional survival (Fahrig and Merriam 

1994, pp. 50–56; Burkey 1995, pp. 527– 

540). Amphibian populations may be 

unable to recolonize areas after local 

extirpations due to their physiological 

constraints, relatively low mobility, and 

site fidelity (Blaustein et al. 1994, pp. 

60, 67–68). In the case of the frosted 

flatwoods salamander, 36 percent of 

populations have only one breeding 

pond. If the habitat at that site is 

destroyed, recolonization would be 

impossible (see further discussion of 

metapopulation dynamics under Factor 

E). 

Roads have contributed to habitat 

fragmentation by isolating blocks of 

remaining contiguous habitat. Roads 

disrupt migration routes and dispersal 

of individuals to and from breeding 

sites. Road construction can result in 

changes in hydrology and destruction of 

breeding ponds. Highway construction 

and associated development resulted in 

the destruction of a historic frosted 

flatwoods salamander breeding pond in 

Chatham County, Georgia (Seyle 1994, 

pp. 3–4). In addition, vehicles may also 

cause the death of frosted flatwoods 

salamanders when they are attempting 

to cross roads (Means 1996, p. 2). 

Off-road vehicle (ORV) use within 

frosted flatwoods salamander breeding 

ponds and their margins severely 

degrades the wetland habitat. In the 

Southeast, ORV use impacts habitat 

used by frosted flatwoods salamanders, 

has the potential to cause direct 

mortality of individual salamanders, 

and is a threat on both public and 

private land. On public lands, areas may 

be designated as off-limits to ORV use 

(U.S. Forest Service 2007, p. 19), but 

these restrictions are difficult to enforce. 

Even a single afternoon of individuals 

riding their ORVs in a pond can 

completely destroy the integrity of 

breeding sites by damaging or killing the 

herbaceous vegetation and rutting the 

substrate (Ripley and Printiss 2005, pp. 

11–12). There is also the potential for 

direct injury or mortality of salamanders 

by ORVs at breeding sites (Ripley and 

Printiss 2005, p. 12). 

In summary, the loss of habitat was a 

significant historical threat to the 

frosted flatwoods salamander. This 

range-wide loss of both upland and 

wetland habitat occurred primarily due 

to conversion of flatwoods sites to 

agriculture, residential development, 

and intensively managed pine 

plantations. This historic loss of habitat 

is presently compounded by current 

environmental conditions (drought), 

proposed projects on private land that 

do not require Corps permits under the 

Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), 

and the nature of pond-breeding 

salamanders to undergo periodic 

reproductive failure. We consider this 

threat to be primarily a past and future 

threat of moderate magnitude because 

most of the remaining occupied habitat 

of this species occurs on public lands 

that are managed to support the native 

longleaf pine ecosystem. However, 12 

percent of frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations are on private land where 

habitat continues to be degraded by fire 

suppression and incompatible 

management (defined above under 

summary discussion for reticulated 

flatwoods salamander). If the remaining 

frosted flatwoods salamander habitat on 

public land continues to be protected 

from fire suppression and other 

incompatible forest management 

practices, road construction, and 

additional habitat fragmentation, the 

threat of habitat loss should be limited. 

Localized threats on private lands 

would include loss or alteration of 

habitat from agriculture, residential 

development, road construction, 

incompatible forest management, ORVs, 

fire suppression, and ditching or 

draining wetland breeding sites. As a 

result, we have determined that the 

present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of frosted 

flatwoods salamander habitat and range 

represents a moderate but significant 

threat to the species. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Overutilization does not appear to be 

a threat to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander at this time. There is no 

evidence of a past or current problem 

with collection of this species. 

Consequently, we have determined that 

the factor of overutilization for 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

educational purposes is not a threat to 

the frosted flatwoods salamander at this 

time. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Although disease has not been 

specifically documented in the frosted 

flatwoods salamander thus far, disease 

outbreaks with mass mortality in other 

species of salamanders indicate that 

disease may be a threat for this species 

as well (Daszak et al. 1999, p. 736). 

Whiles et al. (2004, p. 211) found a 

parasitic nematode (Hedruris siredonis, 

family Hedruridae) in larvae of the 

frosted flatwoods salamander from 

South Carolina and Florida. This 

parasite has been found in other 

ambystomatids and can cause 

individuals to become undersized and 

thin, thus reducing their fitness (Whiles 

et al. 2004, p. 212). The infestations 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6710 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

were not considered heavy and were 

probably not having a negative impact 

on the larvae studied; however, 

environmental degradation may change 

the dynamics between salamander 

populations and normally innocuous 

parasites (Whiles et al. 2004, p. 212). 

Ranaviruses in the family Iridoviridae 

and the amphibian chytrid fungus 

(Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) may 

be other potential threats, although the 

susceptibility of the frosted flatwoods 

salamander to these diseases is 

unknown. Ranaviruses have been 

responsible for die-offs of tiger 

salamanders throughout western North 

America and spotted salamanders (A. 

maculatum) in Maine (Daszak et al. 

1999, p. 736). The amphibian chytrid 

fungus has been discovered and 

associated with mass mortality in tiger 

salamanders in southern Arizona and 

California, and the Santa Cruz long-toed 

salamander (A. macrodactylum 

croceum) (Vredenburg and Summers 

2001, p. 151; Davidson et al. 2003, 

p. 601; Padgett-Flohr and Longcore 

2005, p. 50). This fungus has been found 

at Fort Stewart Military Installation in 

Georgia, a locality where the frosted 

flatwoods salamander occurs (Mitchell 

2002, p. 191–202). This disease has 

negatively impacted populations of 

other ambystomatid salamanders (A. 

macrodactylum croceum) (Vredenburg 

and Summers 2001, p. 151; Davidson et 

al. 2003, p. 601; Padgett-Flohr and 

Longcore 2005, p. 50), and it is likely to 

negatively impact frosted flatwoods 

salamander populations as well. This 

discussion of disease in other species of 

closely related salamanders indicates 

the potential existence of similar threats 

to frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations. 

Exposure to increased predation by 

fish is a threat to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander when isolated, seasonally 

ponded wetland breeding sites are 

changed to or connected to more 

permanent wetlands inhabited by fish 

species not typically found in temporary 

ponds. Red imported fire ants 

(Solenopsis invicta) are also potential 

predators of flatwoods salamanders, 

especially in disturbed areas. They have 

been seen in areas disturbed by the 

installation of drift fences at known 

frosted flatwoods salamander breeding 

sites (Palis 2008). Mortality of 

amphibians trapped at drift fences has 

occurred when fire ants were present 

and traps were not monitored with 

sufficient frequency (Palis et al. 2002, 

p. 6). The severity and magnitude of 

effects, as well as the long-term effect, 

of fire ants on frosted flatwoods 

salamander populations are currently 

unknown. 

In summary, diseases of amphibians 

in the southeastern United States 

remain largely unstudied. However, 

given the incidence of disease in species 

in the western United States that could 

be considered surrogates for flatwoods 

salamanders, the probability exists for 

similar infections to occur in frosted 

flatwoods salamander populations. We 

consider this to be a potential threat of 

moderate magnitude. Predation by fish 

is a historic threat that continues to be 

a localized problem when ditches, 

firebreaks, or vehicle ruts provide 

connections allowing the movement of 

fish from permanent water bodies into 

frosted flatwoods salamander breeding 

sites. Fire ants also have the potential of 

being a localized threat, particularly in 

disturbed areas. We consider these 

threats to be potential threats of 

moderate magnitude because 88 percent 

of frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations occur primarily on public 

lands where they are relatively 

protected from habitat destruction. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

Other than the National Forest 

Management Act and the Sikes Act, 

there are no existing regulatory 

mechanisms for the protection of the 

upland habitats where frosted flatwoods 

salamanders spend most of their lives. 

Refer to Factor D under ‘‘Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species 

(Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander)’’ 

for information on the threat of the 

Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory 

Mechanisms that also applies to frosted 

flatwoods salamander. 

Longleaf pine habitat management 

plans that provide conservation benefits 

to frosted flatwoods salamanders have 

been written for most of these sites. 

They include management plans for 

State- and Federally-owned lands and 

integrated natural resource management 

plans (INRMPs) for Department of 

Defense lands. Most of the plans contain 

specific goals and objectives regarding 

habitat management, including 

prescribed burning, that would benefit 

frosted flatwoods salamanders if 

implemented. Multiple-use is the 

guiding principle on most of these 

public lands, however, and protection of 

the frosted flatwoods salamander may 

be just one of many management goals 

including timber production and 

military and recreational use. 

At the State and local levels, 

regulatory mechanisms are limited. The 

flatwoods salamander is listed as a 

threatened species in the State of 

Georgia (Jensen 1999, pp. 92–93). This 

designation protects the species by 

preventing its sale, purchase, or 

possession in Georgia and by 

prohibiting actions that cause direct 

mortality of the species or the 

destruction of its habitat on lands 

owned by the State of Georgia (Ozier 

2008). However, there are no known 

frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations on lands owned by the 

State of Georgia. In 2001, the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (FFWCC) listed the 

flatwoods salamander (which includes 

the frosted flatwoods salamander) as a 

species of special concern (FFWCC 

2007, p. 2) and prohibited direct take 

except through permit. As part of the 

listing process, a Statewide management 

plan was developed for the salamander 

in Florida (FFWCC 2001, p. 1–60); 

however, Florida regulations offer no 

protection against the most significant 

threat to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander—loss of habitat. In South 

Carolina, the flatwoods salamander is 

listed as endangered (South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources 

2008a). Prohibitions extend only to the 

direct take of the flatwoods salamander 

(South Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources 2008b). These regulations 

offer no protection against the most 

significant threat to the flatwoods 

salamander, which is loss of its habitat. 

In summary, although existing 

regulatory mechanisms provide little 

direct protection of frosted flatwoods 

salamanders (beyond the protections 

afforded by the Act), they do provide a 

degree of protection for the remaining 

occupied habitat, primarily on public 

lands. The record of management on 

public lands since the original listing of 

the flatwoods salamander in 1999 

indicates that public agencies are 

actively pursuing longleaf pine 

ecosystem management programs that 

benefit the frosted flatwoods 

salamander. Frosted flatwoods 

salamander breeding sites on the three 

private land sites may, in some cases, 

come under the jurisdiction of the Corps 

(Refer to Factor D under ‘‘Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species 

(Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander)’’ 

for discussion of section 404 of the 

Clean Water Act and regulatory 

wetlands), but most likely they are 

provided little regulatory protection. We 

have determined that the threat of 

inadequate existing regulatory 

mechanisms is primarily an ongoing 

threat of moderate magnitude. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Metapopulations are important to the 

long-term survival of temporary pond 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6711 

breeding amphibians. Refer to Factor E 

under ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting 

the Species (Reticulated Flatwoods 

Salamander)’’ for additional information 

on metapopulations. Of the 25 known 

frosted flatwoods salamanders 

populations, 16 (64 percent) are 

supported by more than one breeding 

pond and may be considered 

metapopulations. However, 36 percent 

(9 out of 25) of the known frosted 

flatwoods salamander populations that 

have only a single breeding pond, any 

one of the many threats that may render 

a breeding pond unsuitable could cause 

the extirpation of the affected 

population. 

Invasive plant species, such as 

cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), 

threaten to further degrade existing 

flatwoods habitat. Refer to Factor E 

under ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting 

the Species (Reticulated Flatwoods 

Salamander)’’ for additional information 

on invasive species and the threat they 

represent, which also applies to the 

frosted flatwoods salamander. Frosted 

flatwoods salamander habitat 

management plans will need to address 

threats posed by cogongrass and other 

invasive plant species and include 

strategies to control them. 

Pesticides (including herbicides) may 

pose a threat to amphibians, such as the 

frosted flatwoods salamander. Refer to 

Factor E under ‘‘Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species (Reticulated 

Flatwoods Salamander)’’ for additional 

information on pesticides and the threat 

they represent, which also applies to the 

frosted flatwoods salamander. However, 

herbicides may be a necessary tool to 

reduce or eliminate woody vegetation or 

invasive plants when the use of 

prescribed fire is not possible or 

effective (Jensen 2007, Wigley 2008). 

Nevertheless, pesticides should never be 

used in flatwoods salamander habitat 

unless no other habitat management tool 

is available; herbicide label directions 

should be followed closely and aerial 

spraying should not be used as an 

application technique. Under these 

conditions, we consider this threat to be 

of moderate magnitude. 

Studies of other ambystomatid species 

have demonstrated a decline in larval 

survival in the presence of predatory 

fish, as mentioned above under Factor 

C. One of the potential reasons for this 

decline may be the negative effect 

resulting from these fish competing with 

salamander larvae for invertebrate prey. 

The invertebrates found by Whiles et al. 

(2004, p. 212) in a study of larval frosted 

and reticulated flatwoods salamander 

gut contents are typical of freshwater 

habitats in the Southeast that do not 

contain predatory fish on a regular 

basis. The presence of predatory fish has 

a marked effect on invertebrate 

communities and alters prey availability 

for larval salamanders with the potential 

for negative effects on larval fitness and 

survival (Semlitsch 1987, p. 481). 

Wherever connections have been 

created between permanent water and 

frosted flatwoods salamander ponds, 

such as through installation of 

firebreaks or ditches, this threat from 

predatory fish exists. 

Studies of frosted flatwoods 

salamander populations, since the 

original species listing of flatwoods 

salamander as threatened (64 FR 15691; 

April 1, 1999), have been limited due to 

drought. Data on the numbers of adults 

within existing populations do not exist. 

However, given the low number of 

individuals encountered even when 

breeding is verified, populations are 

likely to be very small at any given 

breeding site. Small populations are at 

increased threat of extirpation from 

natural processes (genetic isolation, 

inbreeding depression, and drought), as 

well as the manmade threats described 

above. 

In summary, a variety of natural or 

manmade factors historically or 

currently threaten, or have the potential 

to threaten, the frosted flatwoods 

salamander. The loss of metapopulation 

structure in the distribution of frosted 

flatwoods salamander populations was a 

range-wide threat that caused historic 

losses of this species. It continues to be 

a current threat for 64 percent of the 

remaining frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations. Fire suppression and 

inadequate habitat management 

continue to cause the degradation of 

occupied sites, primarily on private 

land. Invasive plant species probably 

did not have much of a historic impact 

on salamander populations, but they are 

a range-wide current threat, and they are 

likely to become more widespread and 

difficult to control. Range-wide, low 

population densities have been a 

historic threat and continue to be a 

threat for most frosted flatwoods 

salamander populations, particularly 

due to past and current drought 

conditions, habitat loss, population 

fragmentation, and periodic 

reproductive failures that occur 

naturally in pond-breeding amphibians. 

The impact that competing predators 

may have on the salamanders’ prey 

base, and the threat of pesticide and 

herbicide use, are less clear as historic 

threats but remain potential localized 

threats for the species. Therefore, while 

we have determined that other natural 

and manmade factors, such as invasive 

species, pesticides, and competition for 

the species’ prey base, may threaten the 

frosted flatwoods salamander, the 

severity and magnitude of these threats 

are not currently known. Acting in 

combination with threats listed above 

under Factors A through D, the threats 

under Factor E could increase the 

severity of the other threats. 

Determination 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the frosted 

flatwoods salamander. In summary, the 

most significant historical threat to the 

frosted flatwoods salamander, as listed 

in Factor A (above), is loss of the 

majority of its habitat. A variety of 

localized threats (described under 

Factors A, C, D, and E) have the 

potential to impact the remaining 

frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations and habitat. These 

include—alterations in the hydrology of 

existing wetland breeding sites 

(including ‘‘ditching’’ which results in 

the introduction of predatory fish); 

incompatible forest management; ORV 

use; fire suppression; drought; and 

disease. The severity and magnitude of 

the threats under Factor E are not 

currently known. Nevertheless, we have 

determined that threats under this factor 

will exacerbate the effects of threats due 

to habitat loss and drought. As 

described in Factor E above, small 

populations are at increased threat of 

extirpation from natural processes 

(genetic isolation, inbreeding 

depression, and drought), as well as the 

manmade threats listed above. Finally, 

there are potential localized threats from 

fire ants, pesticides, and invasive plants 

for which the extent of impact is yet 

undeterminable, but that we believe are 

legitimate threats due to both their 

impact on surrogate species and their 

prevalence in the types of habitats used 

by this species. 

Only 25 frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations are known. Ten (40 

percent) of these populations are 

supported by only one breeding site. A 

population with only one breeding site 

has a tenuous future just given 

randomly varying environmental factors 

without considering the additional 

threats of habitat destruction and 

degradation that further threaten these 

populations. 

As noted previously, habitat with the 

range of the frosted flatwoods 

salamander is currently experiencing 

drought conditions. Palis et al. (2006, 

pp. 5–6) studied a frosted flatwoods 

population in Florida during a drought 

from 1999–2002. This study 

documented 3 consecutive years of 

reproductive failure and a steady 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6712 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

decline in adult immigration to the site 

for breeding as the drought progressed. 

Catastrophic reproductive failure 

occurs even in healthy populations of 

pond-breeding amphibians. When it 

does occur, the modeling efforts of 

Taylor et al. (2005, p. 796) showed that 

each year of reproductive failure raises 

the threshold of survival required to 

achieve persistence and imposes the 

possibility of extirpation even under 

otherwise favorable environmental 

conditions. Taylor et al. (2005, p. 799) 

reminds us that particularly with small 

populations or low population growth 

rates (as exists with the frosted 

flatwoods salamander) effects of 

reproductive failure are made worse by 

demographic stochasticity. Even in 

populations with multiple breeding 

ponds, amphibian populations may be 

unable to recolonize areas after local 

extirpations due to their physiological 

constraints, relatively low mobility, and 

site fidelity (Blaustein et al. 1994, pp. 

60, 67–68). 

For frosted flatwoods salamander, 40 

percent of populations have only one 

breeding pond. If the habitat at that site 

is destroyed, recolonization would be 

impossible and the population 

supported by that breeding pond would 

be extirpated. 

Habitat loss on private lands is an 

imminent threat that is compounded by 

a variety of other factors. Fire 

suppression on private lands occupied 

by the frosted flatwoods salamander 

represents one of the biggest threats to 

the species’ habitat and the continued 

existence of the species on these sites. 

However, 60 percent of frosted 

flatwoods salamander populations have 

an improved chance of surviving 

demographic and environmental 

stochasticity given that the distribution 

of breeding sites occurs within an adult 

salamander’s dispersal distance. 

We believe that, when combining the 

effects of historical, current, and 

projected habitat loss and degradation, 

historical and ongoing drought, and the 

exacerbating effects of disease, 

predation, small population size, and 

isolation, the frosted flatwoods 

salamander continues to be likely to 

become an endangered species 

throughout all of its range within the 

foreseeable future. We believe these 

threats, particularly the threats to 

populations resulting from habitat 

degradation and fragmentation, small 

population size, and drought, are 

current and are projected to continue 

into the future. We have determined 

that these threats are operating on the 

species and its habitat with a moderate 

degree of magnitude throughout most of 

its range and with a moderate degree of 

severity, as discussed above. 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we have 

determined that the preferred action is 

for the frosted flatwoods salamander to 

retain its status as a threatened species 

under the Act. Without the protection of 

the Act, significant management of 

threats would likely occur on public 

lands; however, there is still substantial 

risk of loss of ponds to drought and 

disease and, on private lands, a variety 

of potential threats (for example, 

introduction of fish, predation, 

pesticides), and imminent threats (for 

example, fire suppression, invasive 

species, and development). As 

discussed previously, declines resulting 

from drought can occur within only a 

few years. In the case of the frosted 

flatwoods salamander, 40 percent of 

populations have only one breeding 

pond. If the habitat at that site is 

destroyed, recolonization would be 

impossible and the population 

supported by that breeding pond would 

be extirpated. This could occur within 

a few years given recurring drought 

conditions and existing threats. While 

not in immediate danger of extinction, 

the frosted flatwoods salamander is 

likely to become an endangered species 

in the foreseeable future throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range if the 

present trends that negatively affect the 

species, and its limited and restricted 

habitat, continue. Furthermore, because 

these threats to the species are of 

comparable magnitude and severity 

across all of the species’ range, we have 

determined that an analysis of whether 

a specific portion of the range might 

require a different listing status is not 

warranted at this time. 

Available Conservation Measures 

Conservation measures provided to 

species listed as endangered or 

threatened under the Act include 

recognition of the status, increased 

priority for research and conservation 

funding, recovery actions, requirements 

for Federal protection, and prohibitions 

against certain activities. Recognition 

through listing results in public 

awareness and conservation actions by 

Federal, State, and local agencies; 

private organizations; and individuals. 

The Act provides for possible land 

acquisition and cooperation with the 

States, and for conservation actions to 

be carried out for listed species. 

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to evaluate 

their actions with respect to any species 

that is listed as endangered or 

threatened and with respect to its 

critical habitat, if any is being 

designated. Regulations implementing 

this interagency cooperation provision 

of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 

402. Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires 

Federal agencies to ensure that activities 

they authorize, fund, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or result in 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. If a Federal action may 

affect a listed species or its critical 

habitat, the responsible Federal agency 

must consult with us under the 

provisions of section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 

Federal agency actions within the 

species habitat that may require 

consultation as described in the 

preceding paragraph include 

management and any other landscape 

altering activities on Federal lands 

administered by the Department of 

Defense, Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

U.S. Forest Service; issuance of section 

404 Clean Water Act permits by the 

Corps; construction and management of 

gas pipeline and power line rights-ofway by the Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission; and construction and 

maintenance of roads or highways by 

the Federal Highway Administration. 

The Act and its implementing 

regulations set forth a series of general 

prohibitions and exceptions that apply 

to all endangered wildlife. The 

prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 

for endangered wildlife, in part, make it 

illegal for any person subject to the 

jurisdiction of the United States to take 

(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect; or to attempt any of these), 

import, export, ship in interstate 

commerce in the course of commercial 

activity, or sell or offer for sale in 

interstate or foreign commerce any 

listed species. It is also illegal to 

possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or 

ship any such wildlife that has been 

taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply 

to agents of the Service and State 

conservation agencies. 

We may issue permits to carry out 

otherwise prohibited activities 

involving threatened or endangered 

wildlife species under certain 

circumstances. Regulations governing 

permits are codified at 50 CFR 17.22 for 

endangered species. You may obtain 

permits for scientific purposes, to 

enhance the propagation or survival of 

the species, and for incidental take in 

connection with otherwise lawful 

activities. 

Critical Habitat 

Previous Federal Actions 

For information about previous 

Federal actions regarding designation of 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6713 

critical habitat for flatwoods 

salamanders, see our proposed rule (73 

FR 47258) published on August 13, 

2008. This notice included revisions to 

the proposed designation of critical 

habitat published in the Federal 

Register on February 7, 2007 (72 FR 

5856), and announced the availability of 

our draft economic analysis of the 

proposed critical habitat designation 

(DEA). On September 18, 2008, we 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 54125) providing 

supplemental information on the status 

of the frosted flatwoods salamander. On 

October 8, 2008, we published a notice 

in the Federal Register which extended 

the public comment period on the 

proposed rule and provided the time, 

date, and location of our public hearing 

(73 FR 58922). We held a public hearing 

on October 22, 2008. The extended 

public comment period ended on 

November 3, 2008. 

Summary of Comments and 

Recommendations 

As stated above, since the proposed 

rule addressed both listing and critical 

habitat, comments received combined 

these two issues. Therefore, we are 

presenting the combined comments and 

responses for these issues, below. 

In the 2007 proposed rule, we 

requested written comments from the 

public on reasons why we should or 

should not designate critical habitat for 

the flatwoods salamander (72 FR 5856). 

We contacted appropriate Federal, State, 

and local agencies; scientific 

organizations; and other interested 

parties, and invited them to comment 

on the proposed rule. We also issued 

press releases and published legal 

notices in the Jasper County Sun, 

Pensacola News Journal, The DeFuniak 

Springs Herald-Breeze, Savannah 

Morning News, Tallahassee Democrat, 

The Albany Herald, Miller County 

Liberal, The Berkeley Independent, The 

Florida Times-Union, The News Herald, 

and The Post and Courier newspapers. 

During the open public comment 

period, we received a request to hold a 

public hearing, however a public 

hearing was not held at that time. Due 

to new information that became 

available on threats to the flatwoods 

salamander and the reclassification in 

the taxonomy of the species, we asked 

for an extension of our court-ordered 

deadline on the designation of critical 

habitat for the flatwoods salamander to 

include the new information. 

Subsequently, a new proposed rule was 

written and published in the Federal 

Register on August 13, 2008 (73 FR 

4725). 

For the 2008 proposed rule, we 

requested written comments from the 

public on known or suspected threats to 

the frosted flatwoods salamander and 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

and any information on the need to 

change the status of either species; 

reasons why we should or should not 

designate critical habitat for the two 

species; and on the DEA (73 FR 47258). 

We contacted appropriate Federal, State, 

and local agencies; scientific 

organizations; and other interested 

parties, and invited them to comment 

on the proposed rule. We also issued 

press releases and published legal 

notices in the Jasper County Sun, 

Northwest Florida Daily News, 

Pensacola News Journal, Savannah 

Morning News, Tallahassee Democrat, 

The Albany Herald, The Berkeley 

Independent, The Florida Times-Union, 

The News Herald, and The Post and 

Courier newspapers. Based on a request 

received during the public comment 

period, we held a public hearing and 

information meeting on October 22, 

2008, at Pensacola Junior College in 

Pensacola, Florida. 

During the comment period for the 

first proposed rule that opened on 

February 7, 2007, and closed on April 

9, 2007, we received 23 comments 

directly addressing the original 

proposed critical habitat designation: 

five from peer reviewers; three from 

Federal agencies; three from State 

agencies; and 12 from organizations or 

individuals. During the comment period 

for the second proposed rule that 

opened on August 13, 2008, and closed 

on November 3, 2008, we received 79 

comments directly addressing the 

reclassification in the listing of the 

flatwoods salamander into two species; 

the proposed designation of the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander as 

endangered; the maintenance of the 

listing of the frosted flatwoods 

salamander as threatened; the revised 

proposed critical habitat designation for 

the two species; and the DEA. Of these 

latter comments, 44 comments were 

received either in written form or 

through the portal at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov; three of these 

were from Federal agencies, none were 

from State agencies, one was from a 

local government, and 40 were from 

organizations or individuals. Thirty-five 

of the 79 comments were made during 

the public hearing held on October 22, 

2008; one of these was from a Federal 

agency, one was from a State agency, 

one was from a state senator, four were 

from local governments, and 28 were 

from organizations or individuals. 

The following summary statistics are 

provided on the 23 comments received 

on the 2007 proposed rule. In total, 7 

commenters supported the designation 

of critical habitat for the flatwoods 

salamander, 3 opposed the designation, 

and 13 were neutral regarding the 

designation. These following summary 

statistics are provided on the 79 

comments received on the 2008 

proposed rule. Nine commenters sent 

comments during the 2008 open 

comment period and also commented at 

the public hearing. An individual, 

group, or agency responding multiple 

times was only counted once as none of 

these commenters’ opinions of the 

proposed rule differed between 

responses. In total, 33 commenters 

supported the proposed rule, 34 

opposed the proposed rule, and 3 were 

neutral regarding the proposed rule. 

Comments received were grouped into 7 

general issues specifically relating to the 

subjects in the 2008 proposed rule and 

the DEA, and are addressed in the 

following summary. We have 

incorporated comments into this final 

rule as appropriate. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), and current Department of the 

Interior guidance, we solicited expert 

opinions for both the 2007 and 2008 

proposed rules from five knowledgeable 

individuals with scientific expertise that 

included familiarity with the species, 

the geographic region in which the 

species occurs, and conservation 

biology principles. We received 

responses from all five of the peer 

reviewers on the 2007 proposed rule 

and from four of the five peer reviewers 

on the 2008 proposed rule. We reviewed 

all comments received from the peer 

reviewers for substantive issues and 

new information regarding flatwoods 

salamander critical habitat. We 

combined peer reviewer comments from 

both years. The peer reviewers generally 

concurred with our methods and 

conclusions and provided additional 

information, clarifications, and 

suggestions to improve the final critical 

habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments 

are addressed in the following summary 

and incorporated into the final rule as 

appropriate. 

Peer Review Comments 

(1) Comment: Three of the peer 

reviewers emphasized the importance of 

the Eglin Air Force Base-Hurlburt Field 

metapopulation to the survival of the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and 

questioned whether adequate habitat 

management, especially fire 

management, could be conducted if the 

highway proposed for the area was 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6714 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

approved (see also Comment 15). They 

discussed the inclusion or exclusion of 

military lands which have approved 

Integrated Natural Resource 

Management Plans (INRMPs), including 

these two sites as well as Navy Outlying 

Landing Field (NOLF) Holley (see also 

Comment 16). These peer reviewers 

were concerned about the finite period 

of the plans and the potential for 

decreased conservation efforts if 

INRMPs are revised when renewed. One 

peer reviewer recommended that NOLF 

Holley be included in critical habitat 

because the Navy’s natural resources 

manager and forester had informed him 

that the Navy no longer had use for the 

field and that Santa Rosa County was 

interested in acquiring it. They 

concurred with the 2008 proposed rule 

(73 FR 47258) that included these 

military lands in proposed critical 

habitat. 

Our Response: Eglin Air Force Base 

(Eglin) has assured the Service that they 

‘‘will not allow negative impacts to the 

salamander habitat’’ on the base (DoAF 

2008a, p. 1). The Commander of Eglin 

stated that, ‘‘Eglin will ensure that the 

proposed Bypass road, and any actions 

associated with it, will not prevent 

implementation of the conservation 

measures identified in the INRMP for 

the flatwoods salamander’’ (DoAF 

2008b, p. 1). The Service has reassessed 

the Eglin INRMP and determined that, 

with the Air Force’s recent assurances, 

it will provide a conservation benefit for 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander. 

The Department of the Navy has assured 

the Service that the Navy has no 

intention of transferring ownership of 

NOLF Holley and the INRMP will 

continue to be implemented for this site 

as written (Department of the Navy 

2008, p. 2). We conduct annual reviews 

of the INRMPs for all the military bases 

with known flatwoods salamander 

populations and reassess their 

conservation benefits and 

implementation. All the involved 

military bases have assured the Service 

of their future compliance with their 

INRMPs (see citations above). As a 

result of this analysis, Eglin, Hurlburt 

Field, and NOLF Holley have been 

removed from the final critical habitat 

designation for the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander. 

(2) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that the locality record used as 

the basis for proposed critical habitat 

unit RFS–5 is based on a poor quality 

photograph of a single larva collected in 

1998 and that the larva in the 

photograph is likely a mole salamander 

(Ambystoma talpoideum). The site of 

the locality record and at least 100 other 

wetlands in the area have been surveyed 

since 2002 during suitable immigration 

and emigration periods. Many mole 

salamanders have been captured, but no 

reticulated flatwoods salamanders. It is 

the opinion of the peer reviewer that the 

original identification of the collected 

larva as a reticulated flatwoods 

salamander was in error. 

Our Response: We agree that there is 

no verifiable evidence that flatwoods 

salamanders occupy habitat represented 

by Unit RFS–5, as originally proposed. 

Therefore, this unit has been removed 

and the final critical habitat designation 

for the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

has been revised based on this 

comment. 

(3) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that habitat within proposed 

critical habitat unit FFS–2, located on 

Tate’s Hell State Forest, is no longer 

suitable for the frosted flatwoods 

salamander. Since an adult flatwoods 

salamander was discovered there in 

1998, hydrological restoration of the 

likely breeding site has been conducted 

and altered the site to a more 

permanently flooded wetland. 

Surveyors sampled the site in 2002, 

2003, and 2004 but were unsuccessful 

in documenting any flatwoods 

salamander larvae within the wetland. 

The peer reviewer believes the wetland 

restoration project and the historically 

poor upland management of the area 

have resulted in the loss of flatwoods 

salamander habitat at this site on Tate’s 

Hell State Forest. 

Our Response: Based on the peer 

reviewer’s comment and the site visit 

information, we believe Unit FFS–10, as 

originally proposed, no longer contains 

the PCEs essential to the conservation of 

the flatwoods salamander. Therefore, 

this unit has been removed from the 

final critical habitat designation. 

(4) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that maps in the proposed rule 

are not sufficient for delineating actual 

boundaries of proposed critical habitat. 

The peer reviewer suggested using road 

or topographic maps and aerial 

photography. 

Our Response: The printing standards 

of the Federal Register are not 

compatible with using road or 

topographic maps and aerial 

photography. We constructed the 

critical habitat units using a Geographic 

Information System (GIS). The resulting 

critical habitat GIS shapefiles are 

available by request from the 

Mississippi Field Office (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The 

shapefiles can be laid over other layers 

(aerial photography, roads) to get more 

precise locality information. 

(5) Comment: One peer reviewer 

stated that reticulated flatwoods 

salamander units in southwest Georgia 

(unit names in 2008 proposed rule (73 

FR 47258; August 13, 2008) are RFS–10, 

subunits A and B, respectively) may 

have agricultural land that does not 

contain the primary constituent 

elements and should be removed. 

Our Response: The peer reviewer did 

not have access to our GIS data when 

we received this comment. When 

constructing the units in question, we 

used aerial photography to verify the 

presence of the primary constituent 

elements on the areas and that all 

agricultural land was excluded from 

RFS–10, subunits A and B. 

Public Comments 

General Biological Comments 

(6) Comment: One commenter cited 

studies which described flatwoods 

salamander breeding sites as roadside 

ditches and borrow pits, as well as 

natural habitats. This commenter 

believed that this shows the adaptability 

of the species and the likelihood that 

suitable breeding habitat could be 

created for the salamanders. Several 

commenters during the public hearing 

thought that flatwoods salamander 

habitat could be relocated or 

constructed elsewhere as an alternative 

to protecting the existing occupied sites 

through critical habitat designation. 

Other commenters at the public hearing 

stated that this was not possible, as 

flatwoods salamanders are tied to 

specific soils and forest–wetland types 

that need to be present in a landscape 

context. These commenters expressed 

support for protecting existing sites. 

Our Response: Flatwoods 

salamanders are known to breed in 

wetlands that dry on a seasonal basis. 

The Service is aware of records of 

flatwoods salamander larvae occurring 

in ditches and borrow pits. However, 

whether larvae were successful in 

developing into adult salamanders at 

these sites is unknown. The ponded 

breeding sites must hold water long 

enough and have a sufficient food 

source to allow salamander 

development and metamorphosis. They 

must also be free of predaceous fish and 

toxic substances. In addition, there are 

a number of biotic and abiotic factors 

that are likely essential for flatwoods 

salamanders at breeding sites that are 

currently unknown. Experimental 

relocations should be an action of last 

resort for these species and may be 

explored through the recovery process, 

if deemed necessary. 

Adequacy and Extent of Critical Habitat 

(7) Comment: Two commenters stated 

that critical habitat designation on any 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6715 

lands approved under the Sustainable 

Forestry Initiative and Sustainable 

Forestry Certification Program (SFI) is 

unnecessary and redundant (not 

warranted). These lands are already 

recognized as habitat for listed species 

under the certification program and 

participants in the program are required 

to safeguard and protect threatened and 

endangered species. Participants are 

expected to implement scientifically 

based management practices and 

adaptive management strategies as 

appropriate. Provisions of this program 

are not legally binding; however, 

participants must comply to stay in the 

program. Therefore, lands under SFI 

programs should not require special 

management considerations. The 

commenters believed designation would 

not significantly increase or contribute 

to the likelihood of recovery of the 

species because the vast majority of 

lands are either in public ownership or 

managed according to SFI standards. 

Therefore, the commenters asserted that 

critical habitat offers little or no 

additional management protection and 

no additional conservation benefit. 

Our Response: The criteria for 

designating sites as critical habitat are 

whether the sites provide the features 

essential for the conservation of the 

species and whether those features may 

require special management 

consideration or protection. Under 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary 

may exclude an area from critical 

habitat if the benefits of such exclusion 

outweigh the benefits of specifying such 

areas as part of critical habitat. We also 

consider whether landowners having 

proposed critical habitat on their lands 

have developed any conservation plans 

for the area, or whether there are 

conservation partnerships that would be 

encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. 

Included in this analysis would be 

whether or not conservation plans have 

species-specific management 

prescriptions, or other management 

approaches, that are coupled with 

assurances of implementation. The 

commenter presented a general 

statement about SFI programs. However, 

the Service did not receive any 

comments from specific private 

landowners within proposed critical 

habitat that identified themselves as 

participants in SFI programs nor did we 

receive any SFI conservation plans for 

analysis. Therefore, there is no new 

information indicating that removal of 

lands under SFI from critical habitat is 

warranted. 

(8) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that private land should be 

excluded from critical habitat 

designation. One commenter suggested 

that the Service should offer incentives, 

such as voluntary cooperative 

agreements as a conservation policy for 

private lands in lieu of critical habitat 

designation. These commenters stated 

that it would not be beneficial to 

flatwoods salamanders to designate 

critical habitat on private land since 

designation would be a disincentive for 

the landowners to continue 

conservation efforts for this species, 

would likely increase threats resulting 

in a net loss of conservation benefit, and 

eventually result in the extirpation of 

flatwoods salamanders on private lands. 

Our Response: Section 4 of the Act 

requires the Service to use the best 

available scientific data in designating 

critical habitat. Private lands are not 

exempted from this analysis. Flatwoods 

salamanders have been listed since 1999 

and protection from ‘‘take’’ under 

section 9 has been in effect since that 

time. The Service knows of no situation 

where a private landowner has 

knowingly destroyed or mismanaged 

flatwoods salamander habitat as a result 

of this listing. Critical habitat only 

applies to those lands where there is a 

Federal nexus (a connection or link to 

the Federal government). In some cases, 

private lands may be affected if the 

landowner is undertaking a project that 

requires Federal funding or permit. 

However, the Service believes most 

application of the protection provided 

by critical habitat will not affect private 

lands. Programs are available to provide 

funds to private landowners for 

managing habitat for listed species, as 

well as permits that can be obtained to 

protect private landowners from the 

take prohibition when such taking is 

incidental to, and not the purpose of, 

the carrying out of an otherwise lawful 

activity. Private landowners may 

contact their local Service field office to 

obtain information about these programs 

and permits. 

(9) Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern about the potential 

for being prosecuted for adverse 

modification if private properties 

designated as critical habitat are fire 

suppressed. The commenter requested a 

definition for fire suppression and an 

explanation of practices related to fire 

suppression that would be problematic. 

The commenter requested that the 

Service offer emergency exemptions 

from adverse modification for human 

life or property. 

Our Response: At this time, the 

Service is unaware of any Federal 

actions that would leave a private 

landowner vulnerable to prosecution for 

adverse modification due to fire 

suppression. Federal actions related to 

fire suppression that might lead to 

adverse modification would include 

improper implementation of 

management plans on Federal lands. If 

suppression of a wildfire is necessary as 

an emergency Federal action relating to 

human health and safety within 

occupied habitat of a listed species or 

designated as critical habitat, an afterthe-fact consultation can be conducted. 

Under the statutory provisions of the 

Act, we determine destruction or 

adverse modification on the basis of 

whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

to serve its intended conservation role 

for the species. However, when 

considering fire suppression as a threat, 

we refer to a Federal action which will 

lead to elimination of fire as a 

management tool and allow thick 

underbrush and mid-story to shade out 

the herbaceous ground cover. Fire 

suppression, in this sense, leads to 

deterioration of flatwoods salamander 

habitat quality and potentially adverse 

modification of critical habitat. 

(10) Comment: One commenter 

requested that the Service should 

consider a buffer width less than 1,475 

feet (ft) (450 meters (m)) around known 

breeding ponds when defining and 

designating critical habitat units and 

stated that the designation of this 

distance was arbitrary because it was 

based on a different salamander species. 

The commenter suggested a 534 [sic] ft 

(164 m) buffer width as calculated by 

Semlitsch (1998, p. 1113). This 

commenter also references Palis et al. 

(2002, pp. 1–20) that is provided as 

support for a smaller buffer width 

around known flatwoods salamander 

breeding ponds. Another commenter 

disputed the scientific basis for 

rounding up the buffer radius to 1,500 

ft (457 m) from 1,476 ft (450 m) when 

constructing critical habitat units. 

Several commenters requested that the 

buffer width used in calculating critical 

habitat units be increased to 5,576 ft 

(1,700 m), since this is the maximum 

distance flatwoods salamanders have 

been reported to disperse and this 

would create connectivity between 

known occurrences. 

Our Response: Semlitsch (1998, p. 

1113) combined movement data in five 

States for six species of ambystomatid 

salamanders, which had been collected 

over a period of several decades. Using 

these data, we generated a 538-ft (164- 

m) buffer width from a wetland’s edge 

into the terrestrial habitat, which would 

create an area that he stated would 

encompass 95 percent of a population of 

one of these species. However, 

Semlitsch (1998, p. 1117) pointed out 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6716 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

that the values used in this calculation 

probably underestimate the actual buffer 

needed for some species of salamanders. 

In addition, he specifically mentioned 

the flatwoods salamander as one of the 

species that may require more habitat 

than the area created by using the 538- 

ft (164-m) buffer width (Semlitsch 1998, 

p. 1117). The Service selected a buffer 

width of 1,475 ft (450 m) from the 

Semlitsch (1998, p. 1115) paper to use 

for the flatwoods salamander 

calculation. This is the maximum value 

used in his calculations for the marbled 

salamander. We chose this species 

because it was recommended by 

researchers as a model for the flatwoods 

salamander due to its similar life history 

(Taylor et al. 2005, pp. 792) and because 

it uses habitat in a similar way. 

Although adult marbled salamanders 

occupy hardwood forests rather than 

pine forests, they breed underground 

and in temporary ponds. The 1,475 ft 

(450 m) value corresponded well with 

data collected over 20 years by Means 

et al. (1996, p. 435) which described 

estimated movements of flatwoods 

salamanders of 984 ft (300 m) to 1,640 

ft (500 m) between upland habitat and 

breeding ponds in relatively 

homogeneous habitat. 

The Service used the value of 1,476 ft 

(450 m) to estimate the size of activity 

areas used by flatwoods salamanders in 

the original listing rule. This value also 

was used originally in draft 

management guidelines for flatwoods 

salamanders that the Service wrote in 

conjunction with the flatwoods 

salamander recovery team. During 

review of these draft guidelines, several 

members of the recovery team (mainly 

foresters) felt that use of this value was 

unrealistic. They believed that it was 

unlikely that a forester in the field 

would measure such an uneven number. 

For ease of application, they believed an 

even number would be easier to work 

with in the field and recommended 

rounding the value up to 1,500 ft (457 

m). The Service did not use the 5,576 

ft (1,700 m) movement distance 

described in Ashton and Ashton (2005, 

p. 65) to define the activity area for 

flatwoods salamanders because we 

consider this distance to represent the 

limit of the species dispersal. Therefore, 

the Service considered breeding sites 

within twice this distance (rounded to 

2 mi (3.2 km)) to be considered part of 

the same metapopulation. Dr. Semlitsch 

was a peer reviewer of this proposed 

rule. In his review of the proposed rule, 

he stated that the distance the Service 

used to delineate the activity area 

around the breeding ponds is wellsupported biologically in the literature 

and based on numerous studies of 

species in the same genus. Further, he 

also stated that connecting breeding 

sites within two miles of each other to 

protect dispersal habitat is also welljustified in the literature. He stated that 

neither value used in our calculations is 

too conservative or excessive, but rather 

an appropriate balance between the 

economics of land use and habitat 

protection. Palis et al. (2002, pp. 1–20) 

provides information on a declining 

flatwoods salamander population 

during a drought. A drift fence was set 

up enclosing the breeding site for this 

population and three partial drift fences 

were set into the uplands at 164, 328, 

and 656 ft (50, 100, and 200 m) from the 

pond-upland edge. Only one individual 

provided one travel movement of 328 ft 

(100 m) from the uplands into the pond, 

during this 3-year study. Although this 

paper provides this movement datum of 

one individual during a drought, the 

Service does not believe it is conclusive 

enough to use in defining the activity 

area of flatwoods salamanders around 

breeding ponds. 

(11) Comment: One commenter 

questioned whether, when proposing 

critical habitat, we had taken into 

account wide-scale global climate 

change and the possibility of inbreeding 

or natural extinction in the many small, 

isolated populations of flatwoods 

salamanders. 

Our Response: Extinction is a natural 

process. Normally, new species develop 

through a process known as speciation 

at about the same rate that other species 

become extinct. However, because of air 

and water pollution, extensive 

deforestation, the loss of wetlands, and 

other human-induced impacts, 

extinctions are now occurring at a rate 

far exceeding the speciation rate. The 

purpose of the Act is to conserve 

endangered and threatened species and 

the ecosystems on which they depend. 

The Service has presented information 

on threats to the two species of 

flatwoods salamander elsewhere in this 

rule. We have no data supporting global 

climate change as a specific threat; 

however, flatwoods salamanders have 

been negatively affected by a recent 

long-term drought. The many threats 

that face these species, including the 

possibility of inbreeding or natural 

extinction, highlight the importance of 

metapopulations. These threats were 

considered and we designated critical 

habitat for areas occupied by 

metapopulations whenever possible by 

providing habitat to connect occupied 

sites. 

(12) Comment: One commenter asked 

if we had population estimates for those 

populations whose habitat had been 

used to designate critical habitat. He 

questioned the use of presence-absence 

surveys as a basis for designating critical 

habitat, especially those areas where 

only one individual flatwoods 

salamander had been captured. Without 

population estimates, he did not believe 

we had sufficient population data to use 

as a basis for designating critical habitat. 

Our Response: Obtaining population 

estimates from wild populations of 

animals is frequently a difficult task. 

The two species of flatwoods 

salamander are widely distributed 

across the southeastern United States. 

Only a few of the populations have been 

studied in detail. Even in these 

populations, estimates of the number of 

salamanders at a site have not been 

possible. For a pond-breeding 

amphibian that lives underground for 

most of its life, the typical method used 

to monitor a population is to put a fence 

around a breeding site that captures the 

adult salamanders that come in to breed 

and the metamorphic salamanders and 

adults that leave the pond after the 

breeding event. At minimum, obtaining 

a population estimate using this 

technique needs to be repeated often 

enough to get values for the number of 

females breeding in the population, 

their annual survival and reproductive 

rates, survival of juvenile salamanders 

(especially the first year cohort) and the 

age at first reproduction for females. 

These values are not known for any 

flatwoods salamander population. It was 

impossible, due to constraints of time, 

money, and fluctuations in weather, to 

determine the number of individuals in 

extant populations for use in this rule. 

The capture of one larva at a particular 

location does not always indicate low 

numbers. In many cases, surveyors will 

simply stop surveying once an 

individual is documented in order to 

cover as many different locations as 

possible within a limited survey time 

period. The Act requires determinations 

of critical habitat to be based on the best 

scientific data available. In this case, 

data from presence-absence surveys 

represent the best scientific data 

available and the Service used these 

data as a basis for designating critical 

habitat. 

(13) Comment: One commenter 

suggested that flatwoods salamanders 

may have adapted their lifestyle 

requirements to a different habitat than 

that which was designated as critical 

habitat. He stated that flatwoods 

salamanders may occur in other 

breeding habitats than ephemeral ponds 

and that these habitats have yet to be 

surveyed. 

Our Response: Researchers have been 

studying flatwoods salamanders for over 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6717 

20 years and surveys have been 

conducted on the Apalachicola National 

Forest in Florida for more than 30 years. 

Herpetologists have also been studying 

other species of amphibians in the 

numerous wetland habitats of the 

southeast since at least the 1930s. No 

flatwoods salamander has ever been 

found outside of historical longleaf pine 

flatwoods or in wetland areas that do 

not dry on a cyclic basis. 

(14) Comment: One commenter asked 

about how we knew that breeding 

habitats were ephemeral ponds and not 

seasonally connected to other wetlands 

if we do not have long-term hydrologic 

data. 

Our Response: The Service used data 

from known flatwoods salamander 

localities to determine occupied areas. 

The locality data included descriptions 

of the habitat. The vegetation of 

ephemeral ponds is distinctive and 

researchers use it to distinguish between 

wetland habitat types. In addition, we 

used aerial photography to look at each 

area proposed for critical habitat and 

verify wetland type. Long-term 

hydrologic data are needed to determine 

a wetland’s hydroperiod but are not 

necessary to discriminate an ephemeral 

pond. Under high water conditions, 

such as those resulting from a hurricane, 

ephemeral wetlands may become 

connected to other wetlands. However, 

under normal weather conditions, they 

are isolated from other water bodies. 

(15) Comment: Many commenters 

requested that habitat within Eglin Air 

Force Base and Hurlburt Field be 

removed from critical habitat, mainly 

due to a perception that designation of 

critical habitat would stop the 

construction of the Bypass Road 

proposed by the Northwest Florida 

Transportation Corridor on the southern 

property boundary of Eglin Air Force 

Base. Other commenters simply wrote 

in support of the Bypass Road 

construction without taking any 

position on any of the actions proposed 

in the rule. The Department of the Air 

Force’s Eglin Air Force Base requested 

removal of the Base from critical habitat 

because they stated that their existing 

Integrated Natural Resource 

Management Plan (INRMP) is adequate, 

and they provided assurance that the 

proposed Bypass Road would not 

prevent them from implementing the 

INRMP. Many other commenters 

supported retaining Eglin and Hurlburt 

Field within critical habitat because of 

the vital importance of this area to the 

long-term survival of the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander. These 

commenters were concerned that habitat 

management of these areas proposed as 

critical habitat would not be possible if 

a road was constructed in the proposed 

location. 

Our Response: In 2007, the Service 

published a proposed rule designating 

critical habitat for the flatwoods 

salamander (72 FR 5856). Within this 

rule, Eglin was exempted from critical 

habitat because the Service considered 

the INRMP for the base to be adequate. 

After this rule was published, a threat 

became known to the Service which we 

considered to be serious enough to 

question the adequacy of Eglin’s 

INRMP. This new threat was 

represented by a letter of conceptual 

approval provided by Eglin to the 

Northwest Florida Transportation 

Corridor Authority in October of 2007 

for alignment of a road along the 

southern boundary of the base. The 

proposed alignment was adjacent or 

through most of the occupied 

reticulated flatwoods salamander 

habitat on Eglin and Hurlburt Field. Due 

to the threat posed by this road and 

Eglin’s conceptual approval of it, the 

Service did not believe that Eglin’s 

INRMP was adequate and habitat on 

Eglin and Hurlburt Field was included 

in the revised proposed critical habitat 

designation published in 2008. 

However, in comments received by the 

Service during the open comment 

period for this proposed rule, the 

Commander of Eglin stated, ‘‘Eglin will 

ensure the proposed Bypass road, and 

any actions associated with it, will not 

prevent implementation of the 

conservation measures identified in the 

INRMP for the flatwoods salamander’’ 

(DoAF 2008b, p. 1, see also response to 

Comment 1). As a result, Eglin and 

Hurlburt Field have been removed from 

the final critical habitat designation for 

the species. 

(16) Comment: The Department of the 

Navy has requested that Navy Outlying 

Landing Field (NOLF) Holley be 

removed from critical habitat 

designation. Reasons for removal 

included that: The INRMP covering 

NOLF Holley provides a conservation 

benefit to the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander, thereby making critical 

habitat designation unnecessary; the 

Navy currently has no plans to transfer 

ownership of NOLF Holley and intends 

to continue its stewardship of the 

salamander and its habitat; and NOLF 

Holley is required to meet current and 

future military mission needs and as 

such is considered necessary for 

national security. One commenter has 

requested that the Service retain NOLF 

Holley within the critical habitat 

designation due to its importance as the 

only habitat remaining in the area for 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

and the potential for transfer of 

ownership from the Department of the 

Navy to local developers. 

Our Response: In 2007, the Service 

published a proposed rule designating 

critical habitat for the flatwoods 

salamander (72 FR 5856). Within this 

rule, NOLF Holley was exempted from 

proposed critical habitat because the 

Service considered its INRMP to be 

adequate. After the proposed rule was 

published, the Service received 

information that the Navy was no longer 

using this field for military operations 

and discussions had been initiated with 

Santa Rosa County to transfer 

ownership of this property to the 

county. For this reason, NOLF Holley 

was included in the 2008 revised 

proposed rule (73 FR 47258). During the 

open comment period for the revised 

proposed rule, the Department of the 

Navy assured the Service ‘‘that the Navy 

currently has no plans to transfer 

ownership of NOLF Holley (DoN 2008, 

p. 2, see also response to Comment 1). 

Further, it is the Navy’s intent to 

continue its stewardship of the 

salamander and its habitat.’’ Based on 

these comments, the Service has 

reassessed the benefit of their INRMP 

and concluded that it will continue to 

be implemented. Therefore, NOLF 

Holley has been exempted from the final 

critical habitat designation. 

(17) Comment: One commenter was 

concerned with the benefits of INRMPs 

for the DOD lands in Georgia, Fort 

Stewart Military Installation and 

Townsend Bombing Range. This 

commenter questioned whether the 

existing INRMPs would meet the 

standard of ‘‘conservation,’’ which 

would entail using all methods and 

procedures which would benefit the 

survival and recovery of the frosted 

flatwoods salamander. The commenter 

acknowledged that the Service has 

concluded that these two INRMPs have 

met this standard, but questions 

whether funding is sufficient to ensure 

conservation measures are 

implemented. The commenter stated 

that, at the very least, the Service should 

continue to review the INRMPs 

annually to ensure no projects, land use 

changes, or funding cuts are proposed 

that will threatened continued 

protection of the flatwoods salamander 

or its habitat. 

Our Response: The Service will 

continue to review all INRMPs for 

habitat occupied by both species of 

flatwoods salamander on an annual 

basis to ensure that there is certainty 

they will be implemented and that no 

projects or land use changes are 

proposed that are likely to jeopardize 

the continued existence of the frosted 

and reticulated flatwoods salamanders 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6718 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of their habitats. The 

Service has determined that 

conservation efforts identified in the 

existing INRMPs for the DOD lands in 

Georgia, Fort Stewart Military 

Installation and Townsend Bombing 

Range, will provide benefits to the 

frosted flatwoods salamander and the 

features essential to the species’ 

conservation on these lands. 

(18) Comment: One commenter 

identified unoccupied habitat in the 

general area in the Apalachicola 

National Forest (ANF) that he believed 

has the primary constituent elements for 

the frosted flatwoods salamander but 

had not been proposed for critical 

habitat designation. In addition, the 

commenter stated that designating 

unoccupied habitat is an essential part 

of critical habitat for a species and 

needs to be included in the final critical 

habitat designation for the flatwoods 

salamander. The Service received 

comments from the ANF District Ranger 

supporting the proposed designation of 

critical habitat for both species of 

flatwoods salamander, including that 

portion of the designation within the 

boundaries of ANF and Osceola 

National Forest. In addition, the District 

Ranger has proposed to create 

‘‘salamander conservation areas’’ as a 

part of amending the forest’s land 

management plan. These areas would 

encompass proposed critical habitat and 

additional areas not known to be 

occupied by salamanders but appearing 

to have potential as flatwoods 

salamander habitat. These salamander 

conservation areas will expand to the 

existing compartment boundaries and 

provide more buffer area around known 

ponds, as well as unoccupied potential 

habitat referred to by the first 

commenter. This strategy will be 

implemented on the Osceola National 

Forest as well as ANF. Expanding 

conservation areas to the compartment 

boundaries will ensure that 

management of unoccupied areas will 

be conducted in the same manner as, 

and in conjunction with, those areas 

currently occupied and proposed for 

critical habitat. 

Our Response: We recognize the value 

of designating unoccupied habitat as 

critical habitat in certain situations. 

Based on the available information, we 

do not believe that designating 

unoccupied habitat for frosted and 

reticulated flatwoods salamanders 

provides conservation benefit to these 

species if it is separated from occupied 

habitat by an area of unsuitable habitat 

beyond the dispersal distance of the 

salamanders for two reasons: The 

likelihood of natural recolonization of 

these sites is nearly impossible (see also 

comment 23), and we have determined 

that this unoccupied habitat and other 

areas not occupied at the time of listing 

not already included within this rule are 

not essential to the conservation of the 

species. The particular area referenced 

by the commenters has been combined 

with those designated as critical habitat 

into compartments that will be managed 

in their totality by ANF for conservation 

of the frosted flatwoods salamander. We 

will continue to work with the Forest 

staff to ensure conservation of the 

species and encourage management for 

‘‘salamander conservation areas’’ as 

outlined by the ANF. 

(19) Comment: One commenter stated 

that critical habitat, as proposed, will 

result in a fragmented landscape, with 

salamander occurrences existing as 

isolated islands cut off from other 

salamanders and from the ecosystem 

process that maintains habitat 

suitability. In addition, the commenter 

stated the purpose of critical habitat 

designation is to aid in the recovery of 

listed species, not simply to protect 

isolated individuals or occurrences 

within a fragmented and disturbed 

landscape. Several commenters from 

2007 provided a general statement that 

they did not believe we were protecting 

enough acreage in critical habitat. One 

commenter asked for the inclusion of 

areas within Bay and Gulf Counties, in 

the critical habitat designation. 

Our Response: The longleaf pine 

ecosystem currently exists in the 

context of a fragmented landscape. The 

Service has connected occupied 

flatwoods salamander sites whenever it 

was possible, according to the method 

described above in Comment 10. In 

most cases, however, flatwoods 

salamander populations are separated 

from each other by large distances and 

unsuitable habitat that lacks the PCEs 

for the species. Surveys totaling 

hundreds of person-hours have been 

conducted to search for flatwoods 

salamanders and potential, unoccupied 

habitat across the range of both species. 

The degradation of the existing longleaf 

pine flatwoods has been extensive. 

Although new flatwoods salamander 

localities have been found over the past 

15 years, most of these new sites were 

in the vicinity of known records on the 

larger public land bases. We believe the 

recovery of flatwoods salamanders is 

tied to management on these public 

lands, where the possibility exists of 

mimicking natural ecosystem processes 

through the use of prescribed fire. 

Outside of these public lands, landscape 

ecosystem processes have broken down 

and the potential for linking occupied 

flatwoods salamander sites by reestablishing longleaf flatwoods habitat 

on degraded sites is virtually nonexistent. There is one historical record 

for flatwoods salamanders in Gulf 

County and no historical record for Bay 

County. There are no known flatwoods 

salamander populations in either 

county, no known occupied habitat, and 

no appropriate unoccupied habitat 

within an appropriate dispersal distance 

to allow for natural recolonization. 

Therefore, we designated no critical 

habitat in either Bay or Gulf Counties. 

(20) Comment: One commenter 

quoted the statement in the original 

listing rule analysis (64 FR 15691) that 

any potential benefit from a critical 

habitat designation would be offset by 

an increased level of vulnerability to 

collecting. The commenter inquired 

about whether the designation of critical 

habitat for the reticulated and frosted 

flatwoods salamanders was based on 

science or pressure from a lawsuit. 

Our Response: It is true that we 

reassessed the need for critical habitat 

based on a mediated settlement 

agreement (see ‘‘Previous Federal 

Actions’’). We reviewed the available 

data on collecting amphibians for the 

pet trade and on prosecutions for 

collecting endangered species, and 

could find no evidence of collecting as 

a threat to flatwoods salamanders. We 

reevaluated our original prudency 

determination and concluded it is 

prudent to designate critical habitat for 

the frosted and reticulated flatwoods 

salamanders. Based on the best 

scientific information, we are 

completing this designation under the 

requirements of the Act and in the best 

interest of the species, using the best 

scientific information available. 

(21) Comment: One commenter 

quoted a 2003 Government Accounting 

Office (GAO) report that recommended 

delaying critical habitat designations 

until recovery plans are developed. The 

commenter suggested that this 

recommendation should be followed 

and designation of critical habitat 

should be postponed. 

Our Response: The GAO report 

quoted by the commenter included 

recommendations to improve the 

process of designating critical habitat. 

The report provides recommendations. 

There have been no regulations 

promulgated requiring the completion 

of a recovery plan prior to designation 

of critical habitat for a listed species. In 

fact, the Act states that, to the maximum 

extent prudent and determinable, 

designation of critical habitat shall be 

made concurrently with a species’ 

listing determination. 

(22) Comment: One commenter was 

under the impression that critical 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6719 

habitat was based on ‘‘potential, not 

exact situations.’’ 

Our Response: The Service assumes 

that the commenter is referring to 

flatwoods salamander occurrence data 

in this comment. All the localities used 

as the basis for designating critical 

habitat were occupied by either the 

frosted or reticulated flatwoods 

salamander at the time of listing or are 

currently occupied. 

(23) Comment: One commenter 

questioned why more critical habitat 

was not designated on Francis Marion 

National Forest (FMNF) and other 

public lands. The commenter urged the 

Service to work with the Forest Service 

to expand the critical habitat 

designation on FMNF. 

Our Response: The Service is 

designating all areas containing the 

primary constituent elements and 

occupied by flatwoods salamanders, on 

the FMNF and other public lands, as 

critical habitat. As we said in our 

response to Comment 18, we do not 

believe that designating unoccupied 

habitat for frosted and reticulated 

flatwoods salamanders provides 

conservation benefit to these species if 

it is separated from occupied habitat by 

an area of unsuitable habitat beyond the 

dispersal distance of the salamanders, 

because the likelihood of natural 

recolonization of these sites is nearly 

impossible. 

Reclassifying the Listing of the 

Flatwoods Salamander Into Two 

Distinct Species 

(24) Comment: One commenter asked 

if the study that reported the split of the 

flatwoods salamander into two species 

had a thorough peer review and 

requested that the publication be 

presented to the public. 

Our Response: Pauly et al. (2007, 

p. 415) recognized two species of 

flatwoods salamanders in their 

publication in Molecular Ecology, a 

peer-reviewed journal; therefore, it did 

undergo a thorough peer-review, as did 

the proposed rule. If a member of the 

public would like a copy of any of the 

literature cited, contact the Mississippi 

Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT above). 

Listing Status of Reticulated Flatwoods 

Salamander 

(25) Comment: One commenter asked 

if the Service used population estimates 

to determine that the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander was endangered. 

The commenter did ‘‘not believe that 

population decline can be derived 

solely from habitat decline due to both 

the adaptability and unpredictability of 

any species will to survive.’’ In general, 

this commenter and several others 

believed that the Service does not have 

sufficient data to warrant listing this 

species as endangered. Many other 

commenters wrote in support of listing 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander as 

endangered. 

Our Response: There are no data 

available on numbers of individual 

salamanders within any flatwoods 

salamander population. However, we 

did not rely solely on declines of 

suitable habitat to determine the status 

of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. 

As required by the Act, we used the best 

scientific data available to verify 

existence of historical reticulated 

flatwoods salamander populations, new 

populations, and threats to populations. 

For example, of the 26 historical 

localities for the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander, only 5 (19 percent) were 

still occupied, primarily due to habitat 

loss and degradation. These data were 

collected during presence-absence 

surveys and during other field research 

unrelated to obtaining population 

estimates. New data received have been 

incorporated into this final rule where 

appropriate. There is no scientific basis 

for the assertion that flatwoods 

salamanders may have evolved different 

habitat and life history requirements 

from those currently described for the 

species. 

(26) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the Service had made a 

determination that the Bypass road on 

Eglin Air Force Base and Hurlburt Field 

would threaten the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander and that the 

proposed designation of the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander as endangered 

was done to stop the road. Other 

commenters stated that if we changed 

the designation of the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander to endangered 

status this would mean we had in effect 

said ‘‘no’’ to the Bypass road. 

Our Response: The determination to 

uplist the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander to endangered was based on 

the best available scientific data on its 

status and the existing and potential 

threats to the species. One of the threats 

we considered was the proposed Bypass 

road. The flatwoods salamander was 

originally listed as threatened under the 

Act in 1999 (64 FR 15691). The Bypass 

road, as currently envisioned, would be 

constructed across military lands that 

are Federal property. The authorization 

and permitting of this road represents a 

Federal action which would trigger 

consultation under section 7 of the Act 

since the flatwoods salamander is 

already listed. In addition, the proposed 

Bypass road crosses jurisdictional 

wetlands and this action will likely 

require a section 404 permit(s) per the 

Clean Water Act. Thus, since the road 

crosses Federal property and there are 

Federal permit issues, the effects on the 

salamander would need to be 

considered regardless of a change in 

listing status. In fact, the Service is in 

the very preliminary stages of an 

informal consultation on the Bypass 

road and, therefore, no final 

determination on the impacts of the 

Bypass to the flatwoods salamander has 

been made. In addition, in the event of 

an adverse modification or jeopardy 

determination, we would also explore 

measures to minimize the impacts of a 

proposed action. 

(27) Comment: One commenter 

inquired about whether the uplisting of 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

was based on science or pressure from 

a lawsuit. 

Our Response: The Service 

determined to uplist the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander based on the best 

scientific data available and not as a 

result of a lawsuit. For more 

information, refer above to ‘‘Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species 

(Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander).’’ 

Listing Status of Frosted Flatwoods 

Salamander 

(28) Comment: One commenter 

supported uplisting the frosted 

flatwoods salamander to endangered 

since there are only 26 [sic] known 

populations of this species, these 

populations occur in isolated clumps 

that could be extirpated by a localized 

drought, and none of the populations 

are grouped closely enough to be a 

metapopulation. 

Our Response: Most land occupied by 

the frosted flatwoods salamander (88 

percent) is owned and managed by State 

and Federal agencies. The Service has 

worked closely with these agencies to 

ensure their management actions 

provide conservation benefits for the 

species. Drought is a problem; however, 

64 percent of frosted flatwoods 

salamander populations are supported 

by more than one breeding pond and do 

function as metapopulations. Due to the 

active flatwoods salamander 

management on public lands and the 

existing metapopulation structure 

within the species’ populations, we 

believe the frosted flatwoods 

salamander does not meet the criteria 

for listing as an endangered species. 

Further analysis is presented above 

under the section ‘‘Summary of Factors 

Affecting the Species (Frosted 

Flatwoods Salamander).’’ 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6720 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Procedural and Legal Considerations 

(29) Comment: Many commenters 

requested that a second public hearing 

on the proposed rule be held in 

Okaloosa County, Florida, because this 

county is within the area where the 

proposed Eglin Bypass of the Northwest 

Florida Transportation Corridor is to be 

constructed. One commenter quoted a 

Northwest Florida Daily News article as 

saying a Service spokesperson stated 

that the decision to hold the public 

hearing in Pensacola was based on its 

being a central location of the 

salamander’s range. Several commenters 

stated they did not receive sufficient 

notice of when and where the public 

hearing would be held. Several other 

commenters stated that the notice 

announcing the public hearing in the 

Federal Register was posted 14 days 

prior to the public hearing rather than 

15 days prior to the hearing as required 

by Service guidance. One commenter 

stated that the process of providing 

information regarding the proposed rule 

and public hearing needs improvement. 

Our Response: A request was 

submitted to the Service by the 

Northwest Florida Transportation 

Corridor Authority on September 24, 

2008, for a public hearing with the 

suggestion that the hearing be held in 

Fort Walton Beach, Florida. A public 

hearing was held on October 22, 2008, 

in Pensacola, Florida. It was announced 

in a press release that was submitted to 

over 200 newspapers in Florida, 

Georgia, and South Carolina on October 

8, 2008. The press release was also sent 

to television stations and radio stations. 

The hearing announcement published 

in the Federal Register on October 8, 

2008 (73 FR 58922). Announcement of 

the public hearing was mailed to 

Federal and State representatives in 

Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina; 

County Commissioners of occupied 

counties in these three States; other 

Federal and State agencies; conservation 

organizations and other nongovernmental organizations; special 

interest groups; and other interested 

parties. The Service also purchased 

legal notices in the following 

newspapers: Albany Herald, Northwest 

Florida Daily News, Jasper County Sun, 

The News Herald, The Post and Courier, 

Pensacola News Journal, Savannah 

Morning News, Tallahassee Democrat, 

and The Florida Times-Union. The 

Service placed the notice for the public 

hearing on public review in the Federal 

Register the day before it was 

published. As a result, the notice was 

available to the public for 15 days before 

the hearing. 

The Service is not required to hold a 

requested public hearing in the exact 

location provided by the requestor. The 

Service selected Pensacola as the 

location for the public hearing because 

of its central location near major 

highways and an airport, to give the 

largest number of people the 

opportunity to attend. The location and 

schedule for the public hearing were 

selected to accommodate the general 

public, as well as the requestor of the 

public hearing, as much as possible. 

Pensacola is not central to the flatwoods 

salamander’s range nor was this 

statement made in the Northwest 

Florida Daily News article. 

Section 4(b)(5) of the Endangered 

Species Act states, ‘‘[w]ith respect to 

any regulation proposed by the 

Secretary to implement a determination, 

designation, or revision referred to in 

subsection (a)(1) or (3) [proposed or 

final rule to list a species as endangered 

or threatened, or proposed or final rule 

to designate any habitat of such species 

to be critical habitat], the Secretary shall 

* * * promptly hold one public hearing 

on the proposed regulation if any person 

files a request for such a hearing within 

45 days after the date of publication of 

general notice.’’ We have met the 

regulatory requirement. 

(30) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the notice in the Federal Register 

announcing the public hearing did not 

provide information on how to obtain 

reasonable accommodations and this is 

a violation of American Disabilities Act 

(ADA) requirements. 

Our Response: The notice in the 

Federal Register announcing the public 

hearing provided information on how to 

contact the Service for further 

information including the name, 

address, telephone number, and fax 

number of the Field Supervisor of the 

Mississippi Field Office; and the 

number of the Federal Information 

Relay Service to call if a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

was required. We did not receive any 

requests for additional information 

regarding how to obtain reasonable 

accommodations for the public hearing. 

(31) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the notice in the Federal Register 

announcing the public hearing was not 

published in Okaloosa County’s local 

newspaper, the Northwest Florida Daily 

News. 

Our Response: The public hearing 

notice was published in the Northwest 

Florida Daily News on October 10, 2008. 

(32) Comment: Several commenters 

suggested there may be members of the 

public that were denied their right to 

submit public comments because the 

online portal for submitting public 

comments at www.regulations.gov was 

inaccessible for approximately a week 

beginning on October 14, 2008. 

Our Response: The public comment 

submission portion of the online portal 

for this proposed rule was inaccessible 

during the time period from October 14, 

2008, through October 22, 2008, due to 

an administrative error. This occurred 

because, although the comment period 

was extended to a date 2 weeks after the 

public hearing, this information did not 

immediately reach the portal controller. 

However, the problem was corrected as 

soon as the Service knew of it and the 

portal was operational until the end of 

the extended comment period on 

November 3, 2008. Comments could 

still be received by mail and this option 

was provided in the proposed rule and 

the supplemental information (73 FR 

54125; September 18, 2008). In addition, 

because this online system is new, we 

still accepted comments provided by email, fax, or mail at our Washington 

office location or received at either the 

Mississippi or Panama City field offices 

until November 3, 2008. All comments 

we received were considered in the 

preparation of this final rule. The 

comment period for the proposed rule 

was open for a total of 83 days, from 

August 13, 2008, to November 3, 2008. 

We believe this provided ample 

opportunity for the public to comment 

on the proposed rule. 

Best Scientific Information 

(33) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the proper application of herbicides 

most commonly used in modern 

silviculture is unlikely to pose a risk to 

flatwoods salamanders or cause adverse 

modification of critical habitat. A peer 

reviewer from 2007 stated that habitat 

management to benefit flatwoods 

salamanders may require herbicide use 

in dry wetlands or at timber harvest or 

replanting to improve habitat 

conditions. 

Our Response: Herbicide use in dry 

wetlands or at timber harvest or replanting may be compatible with habitat 

management to benefit flatwoods 

salamanders. When a property owner 

has developed management plans that 

include the use of herbicides at a site 

known to be occupied by flatwoods 

salamanders, we recommend 

coordination with the local Service field 

office covering the area. We still 

consider the use of herbicides as a threat 

due to the potential that improper 

application will result in toxicity to 

salamanders. 

(34) Comment: One commenter 

encouraged the Service to not overstate 

the role of modern forest management in 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6721 

the historical loss and degradation of 

flatwoods salamander habitat. 

Our Response: We described many 

threats to flatwoods salamander habitat, 

both past and present. We agree with 

the commenter that clear-cutting at the 

turn of the century was not done to 

standards of modern forestry and that 

many sites in plantation forestry have 

been converted from agricultural land 

rather than forested land. We do not 

believe conversion of native longleaf 

pine flatwoods to plantation forests is a 

significant threat to flatwoods 

salamanders at this time. Nevertheless, 

some aspects of modern forestry, such 

as use of site preparation techniques 

that remove stumps and alter or destroy 

below-ground soil structure (such as old 

root channels), continue to present a 

threat to flatwoods salamanders. We 

present further analysis above under 

‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander.’’ 

Economic Impacts and Economic 

Analysis (EA) 

(35) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the Service should consider 

the positive economic impacts of critical 

habitat designation. Designation of 

critical habitat provides support for 

maintaining healthy ecosystems which 

are the foundation of healthy 

economies. 

Response: As indicated in Section 

1.3.3 of the EA: ‘‘Rather than rely on 

economic measures, the Service believes 

that the direct benefits of the proposed 

rule are best expressed in biological 

terms that can be weighed against the 

expected cost impacts of the 

rulemaking.’’ 

(36) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the draft EA failed to assess 

the potential economic impacts that 

could occur if the Bypass Road 

proposed by the Northwest Florida 

Transportation Corridor Authority is 

affected by the presence of critical 

habitat on Eglin Air Force Base (Unit 

RFS–4, Subunit C in the proposed rule). 

These comments generally argued that, 

by not considering the potential impacts 

to the proposed Bypass Road project, 

the EA understates the potential costs of 

designation. These commenters argued 

that the Bypass Road would: (1) Reduce 

congestion, (2) provide additional 

hurricane evacuation alternatives, (3) 

reduce highway traffic accidents, (4) 

increase homeland security, (5) improve 

energy distribution, (6) benefit small 

businesses, (7) allow access to the 

international airport opening in Bay 

County, and (8) substantially increase 

regional jobs and tax revenue. Lastly, 

several commenters express concerns 

that the Northwest Florida 

Transportation Corridor Authority 

(NWFTCA) was not a primary source of 

information for the EA. 

Response: In this final rule, areas 

within Eglin Air Force Base and 

Hurlburt Field have been removed from 

the critical habitat designation. Thus, 

this designation will not impact the 

proposed Bypass Road project. 

NWFTCA could not be reached to 

discuss these impacts prior to the public 

comment period, and thus was not 

included as a source in the draft EA (see 

Section 4.2.1.2). However, to provide 

greater context for this issue, the final 

EA describes the benefits that could 

result from construction of the Bypass 

Road. The final EA also presents the 

results of a technical memorandum by 

HDR/Decision Economics, Inc. (HDR), 

developed for the NWFTCA, that 

documents the potential costs of not 

constructing the Bypass Road. 

(37) Comment: Several commenters 

stated that the Service did not consider 

public lands in the EA of critical habitat 

designation. 

Response: The draft and final EAs do 

consider potential impacts to publicly 

owned lands. Specifically, Section 2 

describes potential impacts to publicly 

owned timberlands, and Section 4 

describes potential impacts to fire 

management and species management 

activities on these lands. 

(38) Comment: One commenter asked 

about the cost to taxpayers of elevating 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander to 

endangered status. 

Response: The purpose of the EA is to 

describe the potential economic and 

other impacts that could result from 

critical habitat designation (see Section 

1). The EA is not intended to address 

the economic impact of a change in the 

status of a species. In addition, under 

the Endangered Species Act, the Service 

does not take into account the economic 

impacts of listing decisions, only the 

impact of critical habitat designation. 

Therefore, an EA of the effects of listing 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander as 

endangered has not been conducted. 

(39) Comment: One commenter stated 

that excluding Holley Outlying Landing 

Field could result in additional 

development in the area, which would 

be potentially damaging to the local 

economy. The commenter indicated that 

negative effects could include a flooded 

housing market, decreased housing 

values, or increased insurance rates 

from building in a hurricane prominent 

area. 

Response: As described in Section 

3.2.1 of the final EA, the development 

analysis evaluates potential impacts to 

undeveloped land that is currently 

zoned for future rural, residential, 

industrial, or privately owned 

commercial development. Because 

Holley Outlying Landing Field is not 

currently zoned for development, the 

analysis assumes it will not be 

developed in the future without zoning 

changes. Absent available information 

on when or where such zoning changes 

may occur in future years, the analysis 

does not quantify either positive or 

negative impacts of any resulting 

development. The Final Rule exempts 

this area from the critical habitat 

designation. 

(40) Comment: One commenter stated 

that Section 3.2.2 of the EA 

unreasonably assumes that impacts to 

development activities occur only on 

parcels that contain wetlands within 

proposed critical habitat. This 

commenter stated that future 

consultations may lead to critical 

habitat considerations of parcels not 

containing wetlands. The commenter 

stated that the EA undervalues the 

potential for development to be 

precluded on uplands based on critical 

habitat designation. 

Response: Section 3 of the final EA 

provided estimates of impacts to any 

developable parcels that intersect 

wetlands. Historically, consultations 

have not occurred in areas without 

wetlands due to the lack of a Federal 

nexus (see Section 3.2). Note that the 

analysis does consider the potential 

impacts to development activities on the 

entire parcel, not just that portion that 

is wetland. 

(41) Comment: One commenter stated 

that input-output models should be 

used to estimate impacts on Federal 

lands to properly consider impacts to 

small businesses. This commenter 

stated that, absent such modeling, the 

report focuses only on private property 

values. 

Response: Section 1.2.2.2 of the EA 

indicates that input-output models may 

provide useful information about the 

scale and scope of localized economic 

impacts. For changes in activities on 

Federal lands designated as critical 

habitat, the Service does not anticipate 

regional economic impacts. Note that, 

although this final rule exempts Eglin 

Air Force Base from the designation, the 

final EA presents the results of HDR’s 

regional EA of the proposed Bypass 

Road, developed for NWFTCA. 

(42) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the EA makes the invalid 

assumption that incremental impacts 

occur only in the migratory corridor 

areas, and that this assumption ignores 

the added review and protection 

afforded to lands designated as critical 

habitat that are not located in the 

migratory corridors. The commenter 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6722 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

also stated that there are other reasons 

for Federal consultation besides Corps 

permitting that have been ignored. 

Response: As noted in Section 3 of the 

final EA the only Federal nexus that 

could be identified within the proposed 

critical habitat areas is through Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act, which 

directs the Corps to permit dredge and 

fill activities in wetlands. Aside from 

additional administrative costs of 

section 7 consultations, the EA was 

unable to identify any added costs 

specifically related to the designation of 

critical habitat outside of the migratory 

corridors. 

(43) Comment: One commenter stated 

that Section 2.7 of the EA forecasts no 

section 7 consultations related to 

development activities. 

Response: Section 3 of the final EA 

estimates impacts to developable lands 

that intersect wetlands. However, 

available information does not allow 

forecasting of either the timing or 

frequency of development-related 

consultations in future years. Thus, 

while addressing the potential for a 

reduction in the option value of 

developable lands, the final EA does not 

estimate the cost of consultations 

associated with these activities. 

(44) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the EA does not estimate the 

impacts of possible future land-use 

changes and re-zonings that would 

accommodate greater levels of 

development. 

Response: As discussed in Section 

3.2.1 of the final EA, available 

information does not allow forecasting 

of when and where any such re-zonings 

may take place in future years. 

(45) Comment: One commenter stated 

that Section 3.2.1 of the EA makes the 

unreasonable assumption that existing 

residential, commercial, and industrial 

developments are unaffected by 

salamander conservation and are, 

therefore, removed from the analysis. 

The commenter also indicated that 

redevelopment in these areas may affect 

salamander habitat conservation efforts, 

particularly areas with extensive open 

space. 

Response: As stated in Section 3.2.1 

of the draft EA, ‘‘[b]ecause the threat to 

the salamander of development involves 

disturbance of soil structure and the 

removal of trees, existing residential, 

commercial, and industrial 

developments are assumed to be 

unaffected by salamander conservation 

and are therefore removed from the 

analysis according to available aerial 

photography.’’ Based on this aerial 

photography, existing residential, 

commercial and industrial 

developments were excluded from the 

analysis; however, all currently open 

spaces were included in the analysis of 

developable acreage that may be 

affected by salamander conservation 

efforts. 

(46) Comment: One commenter stated 

that the EA undervalues the potential 

for development to be precluded on 

uplands based on critical habitat 

designation. 

Response: The EA identifies no 

Federal nexus that would cause the 

private owners of these acres to modify 

their behavior, as indicated in the 

introduction to Section 3 of the EA. 

(47) Comment: One commenter stated 

that Section 3.2.3 of the EA utilizes 

unreasonably low mitigation ratios, 

which do not accurately reflect current 

regulatory requirements or costs. 

Response: Section 3.2 of the EA 

quantifies the potential economic 

impacts to development activities under 

two scenarios. The low-end scenario 

uses a mitigation ratio based on past 

salamander consultations on 

development projects. The high-end 

scenario assumes development is 

entirely precluded. Therefore, we 

believe we have captured the entire 

possible range of economic impacts to 

development activities. 

(48) Comment: One commenter noted 

that Apalachicola National Forest has 

proposed an amendment to their Forest 

Plan which would provide a higher 

level of protection to the species. 

Particular changes include: (1) Creating 

‘‘salamander conservation areas’’ that 

encompass proposed critical habitat and 

other areas offering high potential as 

flatwoods salamander habitat; (2) no 

conducting of extensive mechanical site 

preparation or other actions that cause 

significant soil disturbance within the 

primary and secondary zones; and (3) 

conducting harvests in such a manner 

that will minimize rutting and not alter 

hydrology within the primary and 

secondary zones. 

Response: This comment has been 

noted in the final EA, and costs related 

to developing the amendment have been 

incorporated into Section 2 of the 

analysis. Based on written 

communication with National Forests in 

Florida on December 5, 2008, it is 

unlikely that the amendment will 

impose additional timber management 

costs in future years. 

Comments From States 

Section 4(i) of the Act states, ‘‘the 

Secretary shall submit to the State 

agency a written justification for his 

failure to adopt a regulation consistent 

with the agency’s comments or 

petition.’’ We received no comments on 

the 2008 proposed rule from State 

agencies. We did receive comments 

from two State agency biologists, one 

employed by Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission and the other 

by Georgia Department of Natural 

Resources; however, they were peer 

reviewers and their comments are 

addressed under that section. Comments 

were received on the 2007 proposed 

rule from the office of the governor, the 

State of Florida; the Florida Department 

of Transportation; and the South 

Carolina Department of Natural 

Resources. 

Comments From States on 2007 

Proposed Rule 

(49) Comment: The office of the 

governor, the State of Florida, provided 

the comment from the Office of Citizen 

Services that the information on 

designation of critical habitat was 

passed on to the Executive Director for 

the Florida Fish and Wildlife 

Conservation Commission. 

Our Response: We have noted these 

comments. 

(50) Comment: The Central 

Environmental Management Office 

provided comments on behalf of the 

Florida Department of Transportation 

(FDOT). The commenter stated that a 

flatwoods salamander habitat evaluation 

model is used by FDOT to assess 

potential impacts to flatwoods 

salamander habitat as a result of 

construction activities on a project by 

project basis. So far, FDOT believed that 

this method had been successful as a 

means of coordination with the Service 

and developing approved avoidance and 

minimization measures. FDOT believed 

designation of critical habitat could 

affect future projects; however, they will 

continue to coordinate with the Service 

to avoid and minimize impacts to 

flatwoods salamander 

Our Response: We have noted these 

comments. 

(51) Comment: In comments on the 

2007 proposed rule, the South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources 

(SCDNR) requested that the Service 

remove the Santee Coastal Reserve 

(SCR), Charleston County, South 

Carolina, from critical habitat 

designation. They provided a SCDNR 

Board approved management plan, 

dated September 13, 2002, which 

provided information on the flatwoods 

salamander and management 

recommendations derived from the final 

listing package for the species. 

Our Response: In 2007, SCDNR 

provided the Service with general 

information and management 

recommendations reworded from the 

‘‘no take’’ guidelines presented in the 

original flatwoods salamander listing 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6723 

rule from 1999. They did not provide a 

species-specific management plan for 

the flatwoods salamander, nor evidence 

that management actions have been 

implemented to benefit the species in 

the past, nor assurances that they will 

be conducted in the future. Prescribed 

fire is mentioned as an important 

component of habitat management for 

the flatwoods salamander; however, no 

specifics regarding the use of prescribed 

fire as a management tool are 

mentioned. The Service considers this a 

deficiency in the plan. The Service 

received no comments from SCDNR on 

the 2008 proposed rule. The Service 

does not believe the plan provided by 

SCDNR in 2007 provides benefits of 

excluding the SCR from critical habitat 

designation that outweigh the benefits 

of inclusion. Therefore, the Service is 

including SCR in the final critical 

habitat designation. 

Summary of Changes From Proposed 

Rule 

In preparing this final listing rule and 

critical habitat designation for the 

frosted flatwoods salamander and the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander, we 

reviewed and considered comments 

from the public on the proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

flatwoods salamander published on 

February 7, 2007 (72 FR 5856), and on 

the proposed determination of 

endangered status for the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander, proposed 

designation of critical habitat for the 

frosted flatwoods salamander and 

reticulated flatwoods salamander, and 

our announcement of the availability of 

the DEA published on August 13, 2008 

(73 FR 47258). We likewise reviewed 

and considered comments from our 

notice providing supplemental 

information on the status of the frosted 

flatwoods salamander published on 

September 18, 2008 (73 FR 54125), and 

from the public hearing held on October 

22, 2008. As a result of public 

comments and peer review, we made 

changes to our proposed designation of 

critical habitat for the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and reticulated flatwoods 

salamander resulting in a reduction of 

3,205 acres (977 hectares). These 

changes are as follows: 

(1) We removed the unit containing 

occupied reticulated flatwoods 

salamander habitat on Navy Outlying 

Landing Field Holley, Santa Rosa 

County, Florida, because this area meets 

our criteria for exclusion (see Comment 

16 and ‘‘Application of Section 4(a)(3) 

of the Act’’ for more information). 

(2) We removed the units containing 

occupied reticulated flatwoods 

salamander habitat on Eglin Air Force 

Base and Hurlburt Field, Okaloosa and 

Santa Rosa Counties, Florida, because 

these areas meet our criteria for 

exclusion (see Comment 15 and 

‘‘Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the 

Act’’ for more information). 

(3) We removed the unit containing 

portions of Point Washington State 

Forest, Walton County, Florida, because 

the data on which the occupancy 

determination was based are considered 

to be in error (see Comment 2 for more 

information). 

(4) We removed the unit containing 

portions of Tate’s Hell State Forest, 

Franklin County, Florida, because the 

habitat within this unit no longer 

contains the PCEs (see Comment 3 for 

more information). 

Critical Habitat 

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 

of the Act as: 

(i) The specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by a species, 

at the time it is listed in accordance 

with the Act, on which are found those 

physical or biological features 

(a) Essential to the conservation of the 

species and 

(b) That may require special 

management considerations or 

protection; and 

(ii) Specific areas outside the 

geographical area occupied by a species 

at the time it is listed, upon a 

determination that such areas are 

essential for the conservation of the 

species. 

Conservation, as defined under 

section 3 of the Act, means the use of 

all methods and procedures that are 

necessary to bring any endangered 

species or threatened species to the 

point at which the measures provided 

under the Act are no longer necessary. 

Such methods and procedures include, 

but are not limited to, all activities 

associated with scientific resources 

management such as research, census, 

law enforcement, habitat acquisition 

and maintenance, propagation, live 

trapping, and transplantation, and, in 

the extraordinary case where population 

pressures within a given ecosystem 

cannot otherwise be relieved, may 

include regulated taking. 

Critical habitat receives protection 

under section 7 of the Act through the 

prohibition against Federal agencies 

carrying out, funding, or authorizing the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act 

requires consultation on Federal actions 

that may affect critical habitat. The 

designation of critical habitat does not 

affect land ownership or establish a 

refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or 

other conservation area. Such 

designation does not allow government 

or public access to private lands. Such 

designation does not require 

implementation of restoration, recovery, 

or enhancement measures by the private 

landowner. Where a landowner seeks or 

requests Federal agency funding or 

authorization that may affect a listed 

species or critical habitat, the 

consultation requirements of Section 

7(a)(2) of the Act would apply. 

For inclusion in a critical habitat 

designation, the habitat within the 

geographic area occupied by the species 

at the time of listing must contain the 

physical and biological features that are 

essential to the conservation of the 

species, and be included only if those 

features may require special 

management consideration or 

protection. Critical habitat designations 

identify, to the extent known using the 

best scientific data available, habitat 

areas that provide essential life cycle 

needs of the species (i.e., areas on which 

are found those physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species). Under the Act, we can 

designate critical habitat in areas 

outside of the geographical area 

occupied by the species at the time it is 

listed only when we determine that 

those areas are essential for the 

conservation of the species. 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Further, our Policy on 

Information Standards Under the Act, 

published in the Federal Register on 

July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), and Section 

515 of the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act for 

Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106–554; H.R. 

5658) and our associated Information 

Quality Guidelines provide criteria, 

establish procedures, and provide 

guidance to ensure that our decisions 

represent the best scientific data 

available. They require our biologists, to 

the extent consistent with the Act and 

with the use of the best scientific data 

available, to use primary and original 

sources of information as the basis for 

recommendations to designate critical 

habitat. 

When determining which areas 

should be designated as critical habitat, 

our primary source of information is 

generally the listing package for the 

species. Additional information sources 

may include the recovery plan for the 

species, articles in peer-reviewed 

journals, conservation plans developed 

by States and counties, scientific status 

surveys and studies, biological 

assessments, or other unpublished 

materials and expert opinion or 

personal knowledge. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6724 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Section 4 of the Act requires that we 

designate critical habitat on the basis of 

the best scientific data available. Habitat 

is often dynamic, and species may move 

from one area to another over time. 

Furthermore, we recognize that 

designation of critical habitat may not 

include all of the habitat areas that may 

eventually be determined to be 

necessary for the recovery of the 

species. For these reasons, critical 

habitat designations do not signal that 

habitat outside the designation is 

unimportant or may not be required for 

recovery. 

Areas that support populations, but 

are outside the critical habitat 

designation, will continue to be subject 

to conservation actions implemented 

under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to 

the regulatory protections afforded by 

the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as 

determined on the basis of the best 

available information at the time of the 

action. Federally funded or permitted 

projects affecting listed species outside 

their designated critical habitat areas 

may still result in jeopardy findings in 

some cases. Similarly, critical habitat 

designations made on the basis of the 

best available information at the time of 

designation will not control the 

direction and substance of future 

recovery plans, habitat conservation 

plans, or other species conservation 

planning efforts if new information 

available to these planning efforts calls 

for a different outcome. 

Methods 

As required by section 4(b) of the Act, 

we used the best scientific data 

available in determining areas that 

contain the features that are essential to 

the conservation of the frosted 

flatwoods salamander and the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander. This 

includes information from the proposed 

listing rule for the flatwoods salamander 

(62 FR 65787; December 16, 1997), final 

listing rule for the flatwoods salamander 

(64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999), the 

previous proposed rule for designation 

of critical habitat for the flatwoods 

salamander (72 FR 5856; February 7, 

2007), site visits, soil and species map 

coverages, data compiled in the Florida, 

Georgia, and South Carolina Natural 

Heritage databases and individual State 

databases, and data supplied by Eglin 

Air Force Base, Fort Stewart Military 

Installation, Hurlburt Field, Townsend 

Bombing Range, Apalachicola National 

Forest, Francis Marion National Forest, 

and St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge. 

We also reviewed the available 

information pertaining to historical and 

current distribution, ecology, life 

history, and habitat requirements of the 

frosted flatwoods salamander and 

reticulated flatwoods salamander. This 

material included data in reports 

submitted by biologists holding section 

10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; research 

published in peer-reviewed scientific 

publications; museum records; technical 

reports and unpublished field 

observations by Service, State, and other 

experienced biologists; additional notes 

and communications with qualified 

biologists or experts; and regional 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

coverages. 

All frosted and reticulated flatwoods 

salamander occurrence records for sites 

occupied at the time of listing and 

subsequently occupied sites (typically 

breeding ponds) were plotted on maps 

using ArcMap (Environmental Systems 

Research Institute, Inc.), a computer GIS 

program, as the initial step in generating 

critical habitat units. For purposes of 

determining occupancy at the time of 

listing, we have used the original data 

of listing of the combined species. 

Polygons were then computer-generated 

by overlaying these occurrence locations 

with circles of a 1,500-ft (457-m) radius 

as a method to estimate the activity area 

around a breeding pond (see 72 FR 5861 

(February 7, 2007) for a further 

discussion of the rationale for choosing 

this distance for the activity area). The 

area circumscribed by a circle of this 

radius would be 162 ac (66 ha). These 

polygons were used as a starting point 

to delineate the amount of wetland and 

upland habitat occupied by salamanders 

at each occurrence. 

Since we have determined that 

breeding sites within 2 miles (3.2 km) of 

each other could be considered part of 

the same metapopulation (see 

discussion above under section entitled 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and Normal Behavior), polygons 

within this distance of each other were 

combined to create areas containing 

multiple ponds connected by upland 

habitat corridors. Research on 

ambystomatid salamanders indicates 

that they need high terrestrial survival 

or immigration to persist (Taylor et al. 

2005, p. 799). Thus, a flatwoods 

salamander population requires a 

sufficient amount of terrestrial habitat to 

ensure survival of adults in upland 

habitat, or, if needed, immigration of 

juveniles to the population from nearby 

breeding ponds. Combining polygons in 

the above manner provides a greater 

probability that habitat within a unit or 

subunit will support the needs of both 

species of flatwoods salamander longterm. 

After the polygons were constructed, 

they were overlaid on aerial 

photography. The aerial photography 

was analyzed to verify the occurrence of 

PCEs and their distribution within the 

polygons. In some cases, site visits were 

made to determine presence of PCEs. 

Some polygons were discarded as they 

lacked the PCEs. In other polygons, we 

adjusted individual unit boundaries 

based on the presence or absence of the 

PCEs. Units constructed by merging 

polygons were also re-assessed to be 

sure the connecting habitat contained 

the PCEs. 

Primary Constituent Elements 

In accordance with Section 3(5)(A) of 

the Act and regulations at 40 CFR 

424.12, in determining which areas 

occupied at the time of listing to 

designate as critical habitat, we consider 

those physical and biological features 

that are essential to the conservation of 

the species to be the primary constituent 

elements laid out in appropriate 

quantity and spatial arrangement for 

conservation of the species, and that 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. 

These include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Space for individual and 

population growth and for normal 

behavior; 

(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or 

other nutritional or physiological 

requirements; 

(3) Cover or shelter; 

(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or 

rearing (or development) of offspring; 

and 

(5) Habitats that are protected from 

disturbance or are representative of the 

historical, geographical, and ecological 

distributions of a species. 

We derived the specific primary 

constituent elements required for the 

frosted flatwoods salamander and the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander based 

on their biological needs. 

Space for Individual and Population 

Growth and Normal Behavior 

The frosted and reticulated flatwoods 

salamanders are terrestrial species of the 

longleaf pine ecosystem. Flatwoods 

salamanders spend most of their lives 

underground and occur in forested 

habitat consisting of fire-maintained, 

open-canopied, flatwoods and savannas 

dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus 

palustris), with naturally occurring 

slash pine (P. elliotti) in wetter areas. 

Historically, fire-tolerant longleaf pine 

dominated the uplands, whereas slash 

pine, being less fire-tolerant, was 

confined principally to wetlands, 

wetland edges, and the wetter portions 

of pine flatwoods. Means et al. (1996, 

pp. 434–435) summarized the natural 

distribution of slash pine in reference to 

the flatwoods salamander and 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6725 

concluded that natural slash pine 

habitats constituted only a minor 

fraction of the species’ upland habitat. 

Much of the original flatwoods habitat 

has been converted to pine (often slash 

pine) plantations and become a closedcanopy forest unsuitable as habitat for 

the flatwoods salamander. Nevertheless, 

flatwoods salamanders do occur on 

some slash and loblolly pine (P. taeda) 

plantation sites. The extent of habitat 

degradation has been variable among 

pine plantations. On some plantations, 

the original hydrology, ground cover, 

and soil structure have been less 

severely altered, and these are the areas 

where remnant frosted and reticulated 

flatwoods salamander populations still 

occur. 

Pine flatwoods and savannas are 

typically characterized by low, flat 

topography, and relatively poorly 

drained, acidic, sandy soil that becomes 

seasonally saturated. In the past, this 

ecosystem was characterized by open 

pine woodlands maintained by frequent 

fires. Naturally ignited by lightning 

during spring and early summer, these 

flatwoods historically burned at 

intervals ranging from 1 to 4 years 

(Clewell 1989, p. 226). In some areas, 

such as southwest Georgia, the 

topography of pine flatwoods can vary 

from nearly flat to gently rolling hills. 

The ground cover of the pine flatwoodssavanna ecosystem is typically 

dominated by wiregrass in the Gulf 

Coastal Plain, which is often joined or 

replaced by dropseed in the Atlantic 

Coastal Plain. Many other herbaceous 

plants are found in the ground cover 

and plant diversity is usually very high. 

During the breeding season, adult 

frosted and reticulated flatwoods 

salamanders leave their subterranean 

retreats and migrate to breeding sites 

during rains associated with passing 

cold fronts. Throughout their range, the 

salamanders breed at ephemeral 

(seasonally flooded) isolated ponds (not 

connected to other water bodies) 

embedded within the mesic (moderate 

moisture) to intermediate-mesic 

flatwoods—savanna communities 

occupied by post-larval and adult 

salamanders (Palis and Means 2005, pp. 

608–609). There are some variations in 

vegetation, geology, and soils among 

geographic areas within the range of the 

salamander (most notably, differences 

between the Gulf Coast and Atlantic 

Coastal Plain communities); however, 

basic characteristics are fairly similar 

throughout. Both forested uplands and 

isolated wetlands (see further 

discussion of isolated wetlands in 

section ‘‘Sites for breeding, 

reproduction, and rearing of offspring,’’ 

below) are needed to provide space for 

individual and population growth and 

normal behavior. 

The distance between the wetland 

breeding and upland terrestrial habitats 

of post-larval and adult salamanders can 

vary considerably. In the final listing 

rule the Service used an estimate of 

1,476 ft (450 m) as the radius of a 

flatwoods salamander’s principal 

activity area around a breeding pond 

based on research summarized in 

Semlitsch (1998, pp. 1115–1117) on this 

species and other species in its genus 

(U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999, p. 

15697). However, according to Ashton 

and Ashton (2005, p. 65), flatwoods 

salamanders have been documented up 

to 5,576 ft (1,700 m) from breeding 

ponds. We used this distance (rounding 

to 1 mile (1.6 km)) as the maximum 

dispersal distance for flatwoods 

salamanders. Therefore, breeding sites 

within twice this distance (2 miles (3.2 

km)) could be considered in close 

enough proximity to be considered part 

of the same metapopulation (Palis 1997, 

p. 62). 

Food, Water, Air, Light, or Other 

Nutritional or Physiological 

Requirements 

Post-larval frosted and reticulated 

flatwoods salamanders eat small 

invertebrates that share their 

underground habit. Records exist of 

earthworms that have been found in the 

stomachs of dissected adult salamanders 

(Goin 1950, p. 314). Larval flatwoods 

salamanders most likely prey on a 

variety of aquatic invertebrates and 

perhaps small vertebrates such as other 

amphibian larvae (Palis and Means 

2005, p. 608). Data from a recent study 

of larval food habits found that 

freshwater crustaceans dominated 

stomach contents of preserved, wildcaught individuals from Florida and 

South Carolina (Whiles et al. 2004, p. 

208). This indicates a preference for 

freshwater crustaceans or perhaps is an 

indication that these invertebrates are 

the most abundant or most easily 

captured prey in breeding ponds. 

Within the pine uplands, a diverse 

and abundant herbaceous layer 

consisting of native species is important 

to maintain the prey base for adult 

frosted and reticulated flatwoods 

salamanders. Wetland water quality is 

important to maintain the aquatic 

invertebrate fauna eaten by larval 

salamanders. An unpolluted wetland 

with water free of predaceous fish, 

sediment, pesticides, and the chemicals 

associated with road runoff, is 

important to maintain the aquatic 

invertebrate fauna eaten by larval 

salamanders. 

Cover or Shelter 

At wetland sites, developing larval 

frosted and reticulated flatwoods 

salamanders hide in submerged 

herbaceous vegetation during the day 

(Palis and Means 2005, p. 608) as 

protection from predators. Thus, an 

abundant herbaceous community in 

these ponds is important for cover. 

Generally, flatwoods salamander 

breeding pond and upland habitats are 

separated by an ecotone (area of 

transitional habitat) through which 

salamanders must move during pre- and 

post-breeding events (Palis 1997, p. 58). 

The graminaceous (grass-like) ecotone 

represents a distinct habitat type and is 

important for maintaining connectivity 

between aquatic and terrestrial habitats. 

When the ecotone provides cover and 

appropriate microclimatic conditions, 

survival of migratory salamanders is 

enhanced. Studies of migratory success 

in post-metamorphic salamanders have 

demonstrated the importance of high 

levels of survival of these individuals to 

population maintenance and persistence 

(Rothermel 2004, pp. 1544–1545). 

Post-larval and adult frosted and 

reticulated flatwoods salamanders 

occupy upland flatwoods sites where 

they live underground in crayfish 

burrows, root channels, or burrows of 

their own making (Goin 1950, p. 311; 

Neill 1951, p. 765; Mount 1975, pp. 98– 

99; Ashton and Ashton 2005, pp. 63, 65, 

68–71). The occurrence of these belowground habitats is dependent upon 

protection of the soil structure within 

flatwoods salamander terrestrial sites. 

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and 

Rearing of Offspring 

Adult frosted and reticulated 

flatwoods salamanders move from the 

uplands to breed in ponds that are 

typically acidic, tannin-stained, 

isolated, ephemeral wetlands (marshlike depressions) (Palis 1997, pp. 53, 58; 

Safer 2001, pp. 5, 12). Breeding occurs 

from late September to December when 

ponds flood due to rainy weather 

associated with cold fronts. If rainfall is 

insufficient to result in adequate pond 

flooding, breeding may not occur or, if 

larvae do develop, they may die before 

metamorphosis. Egg development from 

deposition to hatching occurs in 

approximately 2 weeks, but eggs do not 

hatch until they are inundated (Palis 

1995, pp. 352, 353). Larval salamanders 

usually metamorphose in March or 

April after an 11-to-18-week larval 

period (Palis 1995, p. 352). Ponds dry 

shortly thereafter. A cycle of filling and 

drying is essential for maintaining the 

appropriate habitat conditions of these 

wetlands. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6726 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

The overstory within breeding ponds 

is typically dominated by pond-cypress 

(Taxodium ascendens [=T. distichum 

var. imbricarium; Lickey and Walker 

2002, p. 131)], blackgum (Nyssa 

sylvatica var. biflora), and slash pine 

(Palis 1997, pp. 58, 59). An open 

midstory is often present as well, and 

dominant species include the myrtleleaved holly (Illex myrtifolia) and other 

shrubs and small trees (Palis 1997, pp. 

58, 59). When they are dry, breeding 

ponds burn naturally due to periodic 

wildfires, especially during late spring 

and summer. Depending on canopy 

closure and midstory, the herbaceous 

ground cover of breeding sites can vary 

considerably (Palis 1997, pp. 58, 59). 

However, flatwoods salamander larvae 

are typically found in those portions of 

breeding sites containing abundant 

herbaceous vegetation. The ground 

cover is dominated by graminaceous 

species. The floor of breeding sites 

generally consists of relatively firm mud 

with little or no peat. Burrows of 

crayfish (primarily genus Procambarus) 

are a common feature of flatwoods 

salamander breeding sites. Breeding 

sites are typically encircled by a 

bunchgrass-dominated (wiregrass or 

dropseed) graminaceous ecotone (see 

discussion of ecotone above). Small fish, 

such as pygmy sunfishes (Elassoma 

spp.), mosquitofish (Gambusia 

holbrookii), and banded sunfish 

(Enneacanthus obesus) may be present, 

but large predaceous species are absent 

(Palis 1997, pp. 58, 60). 

Primary Constituent Elements for the 

Frosted Flatwoods Salamander and the 

Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander 

Within the geographical area we know 

to be occupied by the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander, we must identify 

the PCEs that may require special 

management considerations or 

protections. 

Based on the needs of the species, as 

described above, and our current 

knowledge of the life history, biology, 

and ecology of the species, we have 

determined that the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and reticulated flatwoods 

salamander PCEs are: 

1. Breeding habitat. Small (generally 

less than 1 to 10 acres (ac) (less than 0.4 

to 4.0 hectares (ha)), acidic, 

depressional standing bodies of fresh 

water (wetlands) that: 

(a) Are seasonally flooded by rainfall 

in late fall or early winter and dry in late 

spring or early summer; 

(b) Are geographically isolated from 

other water bodies; 

(c) Occur within pine flatwoodssavanna communities; 

(d) Are dominated by grasses and 

grass-like species in the ground layer 

and overstories of pond-cypress, 

blackgum, and slash pine; 

(e) Have a relatively open canopy, 

necessary to maintain the herbaceous 

component that serves as cover for 

flatwoods salamander larvae and their 

aquatic invertebrate prey; and 

(f) Typically have a burrowing 

crayfish fauna, but, due to periodic 

drying, the breeding ponds typically 

lack large, predatory fish (for example, 

Lepomis (sunfish), Micropterus (bass), 

Amia calva (bowfin)). 

2. Non-breeding habitat. Upland pine 

flatwoods-savanna habitat that is open, 

mesic woodland maintained by frequent 

fires and that: 

(a) Is within 1,500 ft (457 m) of 

adjacent and accessible breeding ponds; 

(b) Contains crayfish burrows or other 

underground habitat that the flatwoods 

salamander depends upon for food, 

shelter, and protection from the 

elements and predation; 

(c) Has an organic hardpan in the soil 

profile, which inhibits subsurface water 

penetration and typically results in 

moist soils with water often at or near 

the surface under normal conditions; 

and 

(d) Often have wiregrasses as the 

dominant grasses in abundant 

herbaceous ground cover, which 

supports the herbivorous invertebrates 

that serve as a food source for the 

flatwoods salamander. 

3. Dispersal habitat. Upland habitat 

areas between non-breeding and 

breeding habitat that allow for 

salamander movement between such 

sites and that is characterized by: 

(a) A mix of vegetation types 

representing a transition between 

wetland and upland vegetation 

(ecotone); 

(b) An open canopy and abundant 

native herbaceous species; 

(c) Moist soils as described in PCE 2; 

and 

(d) Subsurface structure, such as that 

created by deep litter cover or burrows, 

which provides shelter for salamanders 

during seasonal movements. 

This designation is designed for the 

conservation of the physical and 

biological features essential to the 

conservation of the species, which 

support the life-history functions of the 

species, through the identification of the 

appropriate quantity and spatial 

arrangement of areas containing the 

PCEs. Even though per the Act, each 

unit must contain at least one or more 

PCEs, in this designation all units 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

of these PCEs and support multiple life 

processes. 

Special Management Considerations or 

Protections 

When designating critical habitat, we 

assess whether the occupied areas 

contain the physical or biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species, and whether these features 

may require special management 

considerations or protection. It is 

recognized that numerous activities in 

and adjacent to the unit designated as 

critical habitat, as described in this final 

rule, may affect one or more of the PCEs 

found in that unit. These activities 

include, but are not limited to, those 

listed in the Application of the 

‘‘Adverse Modification’’ Standard 

(AMS) section as activities that may 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Special management of the 

PCEs for the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander and their habitat 

may be required for the following 

threats: Direct and indirect impacts of 

land use conversions, primarily urban 

development and conversion to 

agriculture and pine plantations; stump 

removal and other soil-disturbing 

activities which destroy the belowground structure within forest soils; fire 

suppression and low fire frequencies; 

wetland destruction and degradation; 

and random effects of drought or floods. 

Specific details regarding these threats 

can be found in the proposed listing 

rule (62 FR 65787), the final listing rule 

(64 FR 15691), and above in the section 

entitled, ‘‘Summary of Factors Affecting 

the Species.’’ Due to one or more of the 

threats described above, and as 

discussed in more detail in the 

individual unit descriptions below, we 

find that all areas occupied at the time 

of listing that we are designating as 

critical habitat contain PCEs that may 

require special management 

considerations or protections to ensure 

the conservation of the frosted 

flatwoods salamander and the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander. 

Criteria Used To Identify Critical 

Habitat 

We began our analysis by evaluating 

both species of flatwoods salamander in 

the context of their distribution within 

their historic range, to determine what 

portion of their range must be included 

to ensure conservation of both species. 

We assessed the critical life-history 

components of flatwoods salamanders, 

as they relate to habitat. Flatwoods 

salamanders require small, acidic, 

depressional standing bodies of 

freshwater for breeding, upland pine 

flatwoods-savanna habitat that is open, 

mesic and maintained by fire for nonVerDate Nov<24>2008 14:17 Feb 09, 2009 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\10FER2.SGM 10FER2

erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6727 

breeding habitat, and ecotonal habitat 

areas between non-breeding and 

breeding habitat that allow for 

salamander movement. Therefore, all 

areas meeting these requirements were 

considered for inclusion. 

To determine which areas should be 

designated as critical habitat, we then 

evaluated where the necessary physical 

and biological features of flatwoods 

salamander habitat occur within areas 

occupied at the time of listing and for 

areas unoccupied at listing, whether 

these areas were essential to the 

conservation of the species. Detailed 

data on specific locations are included 

in the unit description in the Critical 

Habitat Designation section of this final 

rule. We considered the following 

criteria in the selection of areas that 

contain the essential features for the 

frosted and reticulated flatwoods 

salamanders and focused on designating 

units: (1) Throughout the current 

geographic and ecological distribution 

of the species; (2) that retain or provide 

for connectivity between breeding sites 

that allows for the continued existence 

of viable and essential metapopulations 

(populations at individual ponds that 

interbreed over time), despite 

fluctuations in the status of 

subpopulations; (3) that possess large 

continuous blocks of occupied habitat, 

representing source populations or 

unique ecological characteristics; and 

(4) that contain sufficient upland habitat 

around each breeding location to allow 

for sufficient survival and recruitment 

to maintain a breeding population over 

the long term. 

We selected areas for the frosted 

flatwoods salamander and the 

reticulated salamander that were 

occupied at the time of listing, based on 

the best scientific data available, which 

possess those physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species that may require special 

management considerations or 

protection. In addition, we included two 

areas subsequently identified as 

occupied by the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and essential to the 

conservation of the species. We found 

that the two newer (post-listing) 

occurrence records were in close 

proximity to areas already known to 

support the frosted flatwoods 

salamander. We identified critical 

habitat units that were occupied at the 

time of listing based on: (1) Presence of 

the defined PCEs; (2) density of 

flatwoods salamander occurrences; and 

(3) kind, amount, and quality of habitat 

associated with those occurrences. We 

identified critical habitat units that were 

not occupied at the time of listing based 

on: (1) Density of flatwoods salamander 

occurrences; (2) kind, amount, and 

quality of habitat associated with those 

occurrences; and (3) a determination 

that these areas are essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

The currently occupied habitat of the 

frosted flatwoods salamander and the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander is 

highly localized and fragmented. Due to 

several drought events, post-listing 

observations of salamanders have been 

made at breeding ponds in only a small 

portion of their occupied range and no 

population estimates are currently 

available. As with many rare species, 

especially pond-breeding amphibians 

with underground adult life stages, 

detection probabilities are low even in 

‘‘normal’’ weather years (Bailey et al. 

2004, pp. 2463–2464). Flatwoods 

salamanders are particularly susceptible 

to drought, as breeding cannot occur if 

breeding ponds do not receive adequate 

rainfall. We know that isolated 

populations, including those of the 

frosted and reticulated flatwoods 

salamanders, are highly susceptible to 

random events. Protection of a single, 

isolated, minimally viable population 

risks the extirpation or extinction of a 

species as a result of harsh 

environmental conditions, catastrophic 

events, or genetic deterioration over 

several generations (Kautz and Cox 

2001, p. 59). To reduce the risk of 

extinction through these processes, it is 

important to establish multiple 

protected subpopulations across the 

landscape (Soule ́ and Simberloff 1986, 

pp. 25–35; Wiens 1996, pp. 73–74). We 

have determined that all but four of the 

areas occupied at the time of listing 

contain the features essential to the 

conservation of the species; as a result, 

these four areas were not part of the 

designation. The two units occupied 

since the time of listing are essential 

areas for the conservation of the species 

and were therefore included in the 

designation. 

We are designating critical habitat on 

lands that we have determined were 

occupied at the time of listing and that 

contain sufficient PCEs to support lifehistory functions essential for the 

conservation of the species. In addition, 

we are designating two areas that we 

have not been able to determine were 

occupied at the time of listing (they 

occur within the same geographical area 

but were discovered after 1999), and we 

believe to be essential to the 

conservation of the species. 

The lands designated as critical 

habitat collectively contain small, and 

in some cases, isolated, populations of 

the species. These small populations are 

at a high risk of extinction due to 

random events and human-induced 

threats, such as urban-agricultural 

development and habitat degradation 

due to fire suppression and hydrological 

alterations. Thus, we believe all lands 

within the critical habitat designation 

are essential for the persistence and 

conservation of the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander, and meet the 

criteria as set forth above. We believe 

that with proper protection and 

management, the critical habitat within 

this designation, and those areas 

exempted due to the Sikes Act, are 

sufficient to provide for the 

conservation of the species. We are not 

designating any areas outside the 

geographical area presently occupied by 

these species because we are unaware of 

any other suitable habitat for these 

species outside their currently occupied 

range. 

When determining critical habitat 

boundaries within this final rule, we 

made every effort to avoid including 

developed areas such as buildings, 

paved areas, and other structures that 

lack PCEs for frosted flatwoods 

salamander and the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander. The scale of the 

maps we prepared under the parameters 

for publication within the Code of 

Federal Regulations may not reflect the 

exclusion of such developed areas. Any 

such structures, and the land under 

them, inadvertently left inside critical 

habitat boundaries shown on the maps 

of this rule have been excluded by text 

in this final rule and are not designated 

as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal 

actions involving these areas would not 

trigger section 7 consultation with 

respect to critical habitat and the 

requirement of no adverse modification 

unless the specific action would affect 

the primary constituent elements in the 

adjacent critical habitat. 

Critical Habitat Designation 

For the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander, we are designating 8 units, 

some of which are divided into subunits 

(for a total of 16 units and subunits), as 

critical habitat. For the frosted 

flatwoods salamander, we are 

designating 6 units, some of which are 

divided into subunits (for a total of 19 

units and subunits), as critical habitat. 

The critical habitat areas we describe 

below constitute our current best 

assessment of areas that meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and 

the frosted flatwoods salamander. We 

are presenting the data geographically 

from west to east and thus the critical 

habitat for the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander is described first below. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6728 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Table 1 shows the occupied units for the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander. 

TABLE 1—OCCUPANCY OF RETICULATED FLATWOODS SALAMANDER (RFS) BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT

Unit Occupied at 

time of listing 

Currently 

occupied 

(but not 

occupied at 

time of listing) 

Size of unit in acres (ac) 

(hectares (ha)) 

Florida Units 

RFS–1 ......................................................................................................................... X ........................ 687 ac (278 ha). 

RFS–2, Subunit A ....................................................................................................... X ........................ 162 ac (66 ha). 

RFS–2, Subunit B ....................................................................................................... X ........................ 162 ac (66 ha). 

RFS–3, Subunit A ....................................................................................................... X ........................ 148 ac (60 ha). 

RFS–3, Subunit B ....................................................................................................... X ........................ 57 ac (23 ha). 

RFS–6, Subunit A ....................................................................................................... X ........................ 213 ac (86 ha). 

RFS–6, Subunit B ....................................................................................................... X ........................ 162 ac (66 ha). 

RFS–7, Subunit A ....................................................................................................... X ........................ 162 ac (66 ha). 

RFS–7, Subunit B ....................................................................................................... X ........................ 165 ac (67 ha). 

RFS–8, Subunit A ....................................................................................................... X ........................ 110 ac (45 ha). 

RFS–8, Subunit B ....................................................................................................... X ........................ 358 ac (145 ha). 

RFS–8, Subunit C ....................................................................................................... X ........................ 244 ac (99 ha). 

RFS–9, Subunit A ....................................................................................................... X ........................ 162 ac (66 ha). 

RFS–9, Subunit B ....................................................................................................... X ........................ 877 ac (355 ha). 

Georgia Units 

RFS–10, Subunit A ..................................................................................................... X ........................ 162 ac (66 ha). 

RFS–10, Subunit B ..................................................................................................... X ........................ 622 ac (252 ha). 

TABLE 2—AREAS DETERMINED TO MEET THE DEFINITION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE RETICULATED FLATWOODS

SALAMANDER BUT WERE EXEMPTED FROM FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION

[Totals may not sum due to rounding] 

Geographic area Definitional areas 

acres (hectares) 

Area exempted from final 

designation 

acres (hectares) 

Reason 

NOLF Holley .............................................................................. 289 (117) ................................. 289 (117) ................................. INRMP. 

Eglin Air Force Base ................................................................. 1,880 ac (761 ha) .................... 1,880 ac (761 ha) .................... INRMP. 

Hurlburt Field ............................................................................. 712 ac (288 ha) ....................... 712 ac (288 ha) ....................... INRMP. 

Total (Okaloosa and Santa Rosa counties, Florida) .......... 2,881 ac (1,166 ha) ................. 2,881 ac (1,166 ha).

Table 3 provides the approximate area 

encompassed within each critical 

habitat unit determined to meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander. Acre 

and hectare values were individually 

computer-generated using GIS software, 

rounded to nearest whole number, and 

then summed. Table 4 shows the 

occupied units for the frosted flatwoods 

salamander. 

TABLE 3—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE RETICULATED FLATWOODS SALAMANDER (RFS) 

[Totals may not match due to rounding] 

Subunit Federal 

ac (ha) 

State 

ac (ha) 

Local 

ac (ha) 

Private 

ac (ha) 

Total 

ac (ha) 

Florida Units 

RFS–1 ...................... .................................... 466 ac (186 ha) ......... .................................... 221 ac (89 ha) ........... 687 ac (275 ha). 

RFS–2, Subunit A .... .................................... .................................... .................................... 162 ac (66 ha) ........... 162 ac (66 ha). 

RFS–2, Subunit B .... .................................... 162 ac (66 ha) ........... .................................... .................................... 162 ac (66 ha). 

RFS–3, Subunit A .... .................................... .................................... .................................... 148 ac (60 ha) ........... 148 ac (60 ha). 

RFS–3, Subunit B .... .................................... .................................... 25 ac (10 ha) ............. 32 ac (13 ha) ............. 57 ac (23 ha). 

RFS–6, Subunit A .... .................................... .................................... .................................... 213 ac (86 ha) ........... 213 ac (86 ha). 

RFS–6, Subunit B .... .................................... 162 ac (66 ha) ........... .................................... .................................... 162 ac (66 ha). 

RFS–7, Subunit A .... .................................... .................................... .................................... 162 ac (66 ha) ........... 162 ac (66 ha). 

RFS–7, Subunit B .... .................................... .................................... .................................... 165 ac (67 ha) ........... 165 ac (67 ha). 

RFS–8, Subunit A .... .................................... .................................... .................................... 110 ac (45 ha) ........... 110 ac (45 ha). 

RFS–8, Subunit B .... .................................... .................................... .................................... 358 ac (145 ha) ......... 358 ac (145 ha). 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6729 

TABLE 3—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE RETICULATED FLATWOODS SALAMANDER (RFS)—Continued 

[Totals may not match due to rounding] 

Subunit Federal 

ac (ha) 

State 

ac (ha) 

Local 

ac (ha) 

Private 

ac (ha) 

Total 

ac (ha) 

RFS–8, Subunit C .... .................................... .................................... .................................... 244 ac (99 ha) ........... 244 ac (99 ha). 

RFS–9, Subunit A .... .................................... .................................... .................................... 162 ac (66 ha) ........... 162 ac (66 ha). 

RFS–9, Subunit B .... .................................... .................................... .................................... 877 ac (355 ha) ......... 877 ac (355 ha). 

Georgia Units 

RFS–10, Subunit A .. .................................... 162 ac (66 ha) ........... .................................... .................................... 162 ac (66 ha). 

RFS–10, Subunit B .. .................................... .................................... .................................... 622 ac (252 ha) ......... 622 ac (252 ha). 

Total .................. 0 ac (0 ha) ................. 952 ac (397 ha) ......... 25 ac (10 ha) ............. 3,476 ac (1,396 ha) ... 4,453 ac (1,803 ha). 

TABLE 4—OCCUPANCY OF FROSTED FLATWOODS SALAMANDER (FFS) BY CRITICAL HABITAT UNIT

Unit Occupied at 

time of listing 

Currently 

occupied 

(but not 

occupied at 

time of listing) 

Size of unit in acres 

(hectares) 

Florida Units 

FFS–1, Subunit A ........................................................................................................ X ........................ 2,285 ac (925 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit B ........................................................................................................ X ........................ 733 ac (296 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit C ........................................................................................................ X ........................ 972 ac (393 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit D ........................................................................................................ X ........................ 568 ac (230 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit E ........................................................................................................ X ........................ 3,679 ac (1,489 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit F ........................................................................................................ X ........................ 162 ac (66 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit G ....................................................................................................... X ........................ 5,373 ac (2,175 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit H ........................................................................................................ ........................ X 887 ac (359 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit I ......................................................................................................... ........................ X 162 ac (66 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit J ........................................................................................................ X ........................ 593 ac (240 ha). 

FFS–3, Subunit A ........................................................................................................ X ........................ 3,078 ac (1,245 ha). 

FFS–3, Subunit B ........................................................................................................ X ........................ 1,804 ac (730 ha). 

FFS–3, Subunit C ........................................................................................................ X ........................ 163 ac (66 ha). 

FFS–4, Subunit A ........................................................................................................ X ........................ 550 ac (223 ha). 

FFS–4, Subunit B ........................................................................................................ X ........................ 162 ac (66 ha). 

South Carolina Units 

FFS–5, Subunit A ........................................................................................................ X ........................ 154 ac (63 ha). 

FFS–5, Subunit B ........................................................................................................ X ........................ 183 ac (74 ha). 

FFS–6 .......................................................................................................................... X ........................ 1,300 ac (526 ha). 

FFS–7 .......................................................................................................................... X ........................ 162 ac (66 ha). 

TABLE 5—AREAS DETERMINED TO MEET THE DEFINITION OF CRITICAL HABITAT FOR THE FROSTED FLATWOODS

SALAMANDER BUT WERE EXEMPTED FROM FINAL CRITICAL HABITAT DESIGNATION

[Totals may not sum due to rounding] 

Geographic area 

Definitional areas 

acres 

(hectares) 

Area exempted 

from final 

designation 

acres 

(hectares) 

Reason 

Fort Stewart Military Installation ............................................................................................ 5,121 (2,072) 5,121 (2,072) INRMP. 

Townsend Bombing Range ................................................................................................... 162 (66) 162 (66) INRMP. 

Total (Georgia) ............................................................................................................... 5,283 (2,137) 5,283 (2,137) 

Table 6 provides the approximate area 

encompassed within each critical 

habitat unit determined to meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

frosted flatwoods salamander. Acre and 

hectare values were individually 

computer-generated using GIS software, 

rounded to nearest whole number, and 

then summed. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6730 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 6—CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS FOR THE FROSTED FLATWOODS SALAMANDER (FFS) 

[Totals may not match due to rounding] 

Subunit Federal 

ac (ha) 

State 

ac (ha) 

Local 

ac (ha) 

Private 

ac (ha) 

Total 

ac (ha) 

Florida Units 

FFS–1, Subunit A .... 1,976 ac (800 ha) ...... .................................... .................................... 309 ac (125 ha) ......... 2,285 ac (925 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit B .... 695 ac (281 ha) ......... .................................... .................................... 38 ac (15 ha) ............. 733 ac (296 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit C .... 972 ac (393 ha) ......... .................................... .................................... .................................... 972 ac (393 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit D .... 568 ac (230 ha) ......... .................................... .................................... .................................... 568 ac (230 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit E .... 3,473 ac (1,406 ha) ... .................................... .................................... 206 ac (83 ha) ........... 3,679 ac (1,489 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit F ..... 162 ac (66 ha) ........... .................................... .................................... .................................... 162 ac (66 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit G .... 5,277 ac (2,136 ha) ... .................................... .................................... 96 ac (39 ha) ............. 5,373 ac (2,175 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit H .... 861 ac (348 ha) ......... 22 ac (9 ha) ............... .................................... 4 ac (2 ha) ................. 887 ac (359 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit I ...... 162 ac (66 ha) ........... .................................... .................................... .................................... 162 ac (66 ha). 

FFS–1, Subunit J ..... 593 ac (240 ha) ......... .................................... .................................... .................................... 593 ac (240 ha). 

FFS–3, Subunit A .... 1,456 ac (589 ha) ...... .................................... .................................... 1,622 ac (656 ha) ...... 3,078 ac (1,245 ha). 

FFS–3, Subunit B .... 593 ac (240 ha) ......... .................................... .................................... 1,211 ac (490 ha) ...... 1,804 ac (730 ha). 

FFS–3, Subunit C .... .................................... 85 ac (34 ha) ............. .................................... 78 ac (32 ha) ............. 163 ac (66 ha). 

FFS–4, Subunit A .... 550 ac (223 ha) ......... .................................... .................................... .................................... 550 ac (223 ha). 

FFS–4, Subunit B .... .................................... .................................... .................................... 162 ac (66 ha) ........... 162 ac (66 ha). 

South Carolina Units 

FFS–5, Subunit A .... .................................... .................................... .................................... 154 ac (62 ha) ........... 154 ac (62 ha). 

FFS–5 Subunit B ..... .................................... .................................... .................................... 183 ac (74 ha) ........... 183 ac (74 ha). 

FFS–6 ...................... 1,176 ac (476 ha) ...... .................................... .................................... 124 ac (50 ha) ........... 1,300 ac (526 ha). 

FFS–7 ...................... .................................... 162 ac (66 ha) ........... .................................... 0.32 ac (0.13 ha) ....... 162 ac (66 ha). 

Total .................. 18,514 ac (7,494 ha) 269 ac (109 ha) ......... 0 ac (0 ha) ................. 4,187 ac (1,694 ha) ... 22,970 ac (9,297 ha). 

We present brief descriptions of all 

units, and reasons why they meet the 

definition of critical habitat for the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and 

the frosted flatwoods salamander below. 

Unit descriptions are presented 

separately by species. All threats apply 

equally to all PCEs in each unit 

description. 

Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander 

(RFS) 

Unit RFS–1 

Unit RFS–1 encompasses 687 ac (278 

ha) in Santa Rosa County, Florida. 

Within this unit, 466 ac (189 ha) consist 

of State land in the Garcon Point Water 

Management Area managed by the 

Northwest Florida Water Management 

District (NWFLWMD) and in the Yellow 

River Marsh State Buffer Preserve 

(YRMSBP); 221 ac (89 ha) are in private 

ownership. Unit RFS–1 is bisected by 

Hwy. 191 and occurs within an 

extensive wet prairie. Since the majority 

of this unit, which was occupied at the 

time of listing, is owned by NWFLWMD 

and YRMSBP, it is likely protected from 

most agricultural and urban 

development. Threats to reticulated 

flatwoods salamander habitat that may 

require special management of the PCEs 

include potential fire suppression and 

potential hydrologic changes resulting 

from the adjacent highway that could 

alter the ecological functioning of the 

breeding pond and surrounding 

terrestrial habitat. Ditches associated 

with highways can drain water from a 

site and result in ponds with shorter 

hydroperiods and drier terrestrial 

habitat. Alternatively, ditches can 

connect isolated wetlands with 

permanent water sites that increase the 

hydroperiod of ponds and facilitate the 

introduction of predaceous fish into 

breeding ponds. In addition, run-off 

from highways can introduce toxic 

chemicals into breeding sites. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple reticulated 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Unit RFS–2 

Unit RFS–2 is comprised of two 

subunits encompassing 324 ac (131 ha) 

in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Within 

this unit, which was occupied at the 

time of listing, there are 162 ac (66 ha) 

on State land managed by NWFLWMD 

and Blackwater River State Forest 

(BRSF); and 162 ac (66 ha) are in private 

ownership. 

Subunit A 

Unit RFS–2, Subunit A encompasses 

162 ac (66 ha) on private land in Santa 

Rosa County, Florida. This subunit is 

located northeast of Milton, Florida. 

Threats to the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander and its habitat that may 

require special management of the PCEs 

include agricultural and urban 

development, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, potential hydrological 

alterations to the habitat, and the 

potential for fire suppression. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple reticulated 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Subunit B 

Unit RFS–2, Subunit B encompasses 

162 ac (66 ha) in Santa Rosa County, 

Florida. Within this unit, there are 32 ac 

(13 ha) on State land managed by 

NWFLWMD and 130 ac (53 ha) on State 

land managed by BRSF. This subunit is 

located south of Interstate 10 and near 

the Santa Rosa-Okaloosa County border. 

A small county road bisects the unit and 

a power line crosses the eastern edge of 

the breeding pond. Threats to the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and its 

habitat that may require special 

management of the PCEs include the 

potential for fire suppression, potential 

detrimental alterations in forestry 

practices that could destroy the belowground soil structure, and potential 

hydrologic changes resulting from the 

road and power line that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. In 

addition, run-off from highways can 

introduce toxic chemicals into breeding 

sites. All lands designated as critical 

habitat contain all PCEs and support 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6731 

multiple reticulated flatwoods 

salamander life processes. 

Unit RFS–3 

Unit RFS–3 is comprised of two 

subunits encompassing 205 ac (83 ha) in 

Santa Rosa County, Florida. Within this 

unit, which was occupied at the time of 

listing, 180 ac (73 ha) are on private 

land and 25 ac (10 ha) are on property 

owned by the Santa Rosa County School 

Board. 

Subunit A 

Unit RFS–3, Subunit A encompasses 

148 ac (60 ha) on private land in Santa 

Rosa County, Florida. This subunit is 

located near a rapidly developing 

section of Federal Hwy. 98 between 

Navarre and Gulf Breeze, Florida. 

Threats to the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander and its habitat that may 

require special management of the PCEs 

include the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soils 

structure, potential hydrologic changes 

resulting from the highway that could 

alter the ecology of the breeding pond 

and surrounding terrestrial habitat, and 

potential habitat destruction due to 

urban and commercial development 

nearby. All lands designated as critical 

habitat contain all PCEs and support 

multiple reticulated flatwoods 

salamander life processes. 

Subunit B 

Unit RFS–3, Subunit B encompasses 

57 ac (23 ha) in Santa Rosa County, 

Florida. This subunit is located near a 

rapidly developing section of U.S. Hwy. 

98 between Navarre and Gulf Breeze, 

Florida. Within this subunit, 32 ac (13 

ha) are on private land and 25 ac (10 ha) 

are on property owned by the Santa 

Rosa County School Board. Threats to 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

habitat that may require special 

management of the existing PCEs 

include the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soils 

structure, potential hydrologic changes 

resulting from adjacent roads that could 

alter the ecology of the breeding pond 

and surrounding terrestrial habitat, and 

future habitat destruction due to urban 

and commercial development. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple reticulated 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Unit RFS–6 

Unit RFS–6 is composed of two 

subunits encompassing 375 ac (152 ha) 

in Walton and Washington Counties, 

Florida. Within this unit (which was 

occupied at the time of listing), 213 ac 

(86 ha) are on private land in Walton 

County, Florida, and 162 ac (66 ha) are 

located on Pine Log State Forest 

(managed by the State of Florida’s 

Division of Forestry) in Washington 

County, Florida. 

Subunit A 

Unit RFS–6, Subunit A encompasses 

213 ac (86 ha) on private land in Walton 

County, Florida. This subunit is 

bisected by State Hwy. 81 near Bruce, 

Florida. Threats to the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander and its habitat 

that may require special management of 

the PCEs include the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, potential hydrologic changes 

resulting from adjacent roads that could 

alter the ecology of the breeding pond 

and surrounding terrestrial habitat, and 

future habitat destruction due to urban 

and commercial development. In 

addition, run-off from highways can 

introduce toxic chemicals into breeding 

sites. All lands designated as critical 

habitat contain all PCEs and support 

multiple reticulated flatwoods 

salamander life processes. 

Subunit B 

Unit RFS–6, Subunit B encompasses 

162 ac (66 ha) on Pine Log State Forest 

(managed by the State of Florida’s 

Division of Forestry) in Washington 

County, Florida. Since the lands located 

within this subunit are owned by the 

State of Florida, they are likely 

protected from direct agricultural and 

urban development; however, threats 

remain to the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander and its habitat that may 

require special management of the PCEs. 

They include the potential for fire 

suppression and potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure. All lands designated as 

critical habitat contain all PCEs and 

support multiple reticulated flatwoods 

salamander life processes. 

Unit RFS–7 

Unit RFS–7, which was occupied at 

the time of listing, is comprised of two 

subunits encompassing 327 ac (132 ha) 

on private land in Holmes and 

Washington Counties, Florida. 

Subunit A 

Unit RFS–7, Subunit A encompasses 

162 ac (66 ha) on private land in Holmes 

County, Florida. This subunit is located 

approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) east of 

State Hwy. 79 and approximately 5.5 mi 

(8.8 km) north of Bonifay, Florida. 

Threats to the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander and its habitat that may 

require special management of the PCEs 

include the potential for fire 

suppression, potential expansion of 

agriculture into the unit, potential 

detrimental alterations in forestry 

practices that could destroy the belowground soil structure, and potential 

hydrologic changes resulting from 

adjacent roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple reticulated 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Subunit B 

Unit RFS–7, Subunit B encompasses 

165 ac (67 ha) on private land in 

Washington County, Florida. This 

subunit is located less than a mile (1.6 

km) northwest of State Hwy. 79 and 

approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) west of 

Vernon, Florida. Threats to the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and its 

habitat that may require special 

management of the PCEs include the 

potential for fire suppression, potential 

expansion of agriculture into the unit, 

potential detrimental alterations in 

forestry practices that could destroy the 

below-ground soil structure, and 

potential hydrologic changes resulting 

from adjacent roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple reticulated 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Unit RFS–8 

Unit RFS–8, which was occupied at 

the time of listing, is composed of three 

subunits encompassing 712 ac (288 ha) 

on private land in Jackson County, 

Florida. 

Subunit A 

Unit RFS–8, Subunit A encompasses 

110 ac (45 ha) on private land in 

western Jackson County, Florida near 

the Jackson-Washington County line. 

This subunit is located just south of U.S. 

Hwy. 90 and west of State Hwy. 231 

approximately 10 mi (16 km) west of 

Marianna, Florida. Threats to the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and its 

habitat that may require special 

management of the PCEs include the 

potential for fire suppression, potential 

expansion of agriculture and residential 

development into the unit, potential 

detrimental alterations in forestry 

practices that could destroy the belowground soil structure, and potential 

hydrologic changes resulting from 

adjacent roads that could alter the 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6732 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. In 

addition, run-off from highways can 

introduce toxic chemicals into breeding 

sites. All lands designated as critical 

habitat contain all PCEs and support 

multiple reticulated flatwoods 

salamander life processes. 

Subunit B 

Unit RFS–8, Subunit B encompasses 

358 ac (145 ha) on private land in 

Jackson County, Florida. This subunit is 

located just east of State Hwy. 71 and 

south of U.S. Hwy. 90, between Old 

Spanish Trail and the CSX railroad. 

This locality is approximately 4 mi (6.4 

km) southeast of Marianna, Florida. 

Threats to the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander and its habitat that may 

require special management of the PCEs 

include the potential for fire 

suppression, potential expansion of 

agriculture and residential development 

into the unit, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent roads 

that could alter the ecology of the 

breeding pond and surrounding 

terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off 

from highways can introduce toxic 

chemicals into breeding sites. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple reticulated 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Subunit C 

Unit RFS–8, Subunit C encompasses 

244 ac (99 ha) on private land in Jackson 

County, Florida. This currently 

occupied subunit is bisected by State 

Hwy. 275 south of Interstate 10 near 

Wolf Slough. Threats to the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander and its habitat 

that may require special management of 

the PCEs include the potential for fire 

suppression, potential expansion of 

agriculture and residential development 

into the unit, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent roads 

that could alter the ecology of the 

breeding pond and surrounding 

terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off 

from highways can introduce toxic 

chemicals into breeding sites. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple reticulated 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Unit RFS–9 

Unit RFS–9, which was occupied at 

the time of listing, is comprised of two 

subunits encompassing 1,039 ac (421 

ha) on private land in Calhoun County, 

Florida. 

Subunit A 

Unit RFS–9, Subunit A encompasses 

162 ac (66 ha) on private land in 

Calhoun County, Florida. This subunit 

is bisected by an unnamed road near 

Broad Branch, is approximately 2.5 mi 

(4 km) west of State Hwy. 73, and is 

approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) west of 

Kinard, Florida. Threats to the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and its 

habitat that may require special 

management of the PCEs include the 

potential for fire suppression, potential 

expansion of agriculture and residential 

development into the unit, potential 

detrimental alterations in forestry 

practices that could destroy the belowground soil structure, and potential 

hydrologic changes resulting from 

adjacent roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. In 

addition, run-off from highways can 

introduce toxic chemicals into breeding 

sites. All lands designated as critical 

habitat contain all PCEs and support 

multiple reticulated flatwoods 

salamander life processes. 

Subunit B 

Unit RFS–9, Subunit B encompasses 

877 ac (355 ha) on private land in 

Calhoun County, Florida. This subunit 

is bisected by an unnamed road running 

east of and parallel to State Hwy. 71, 

and is located approximately 13 mi 

(20.8 km) south of Scotts Ferry, Florida. 

Threats to the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander and its habitat that may 

require special management of the PCEs 

include the potential for fire 

suppression, potential expansion of 

agriculture and residential development 

into the unit, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent roads 

that could alter the ecology of the 

breeding pond and surrounding 

terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off 

from highways can introduce toxic 

chemicals into breeding sites. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple reticulated 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Unit RFS–10 

Unit RFS–10, which was occupied at 

the time of listing, is comprised of two 

subunits encompassing 784 ac (317 ha) 

in Baker and Miller counties, Georgia. 

Within RFS–10, 162 ac (66 ha) are 

located on Mayhaw Wildlife 

Management Area (managed by the 

State of Georgia) in Miller County, 

Georgia, and 622 ac (252 ha) are located 

on private land adjacent to, and running 

south of, State Highway 200 in 

southwestern Baker County, Georgia. 

Subunit A 

Unit RFS–10, Subunit A encompasses 

162 ac (66 ha) on Mayhaw Wildlife 

Management Area (managed by the 

State of Georgia) in Miller County, 

Georgia. Since this subunit is owned by 

the State of Georgia, it is likely 

protected from most agricultural and 

urban development (Ozier 2008). 

Threats to the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander and its habitat that may 

require special management of the PCEs 

include the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent 

highways and roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple reticulated 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Subunit B 

Unit RFS–10, Subunit B encompasses 

622 ac (252 ha) on private land adjacent 

to, and south of, State Highway 200 in 

southwestern Baker County, Georgia. 

Threats to the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander and its habitat that may 

require special management of the PCEs 

include the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent 

highways and roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. In 

addition, run-off from highways can 

introduce toxic chemicals into breeding 

sites. All lands designated as critical 

habitat contain all PCEs and support 

multiple reticulated flatwoods 

salamander life processes. 

Frosted Flatwoods Salamander (FFS) 

Unit FFS–1 

Unit FFS–1 is comprised of 10 

subunits in Liberty and Franklin 

Counties, Florida. These subunits are 

comprised primarily of U.S. Forest 

Service land lying within the 

Apalachicola National Forest. The 

combined acreage of these subunits is 

15,414 ac (6,238 ha). Of these acres, 

14,614 ac (5,914 ha) are on the 

Apalachicola National Forest, 22 ac (9 

ha) are under State management, and 

778 ac (315 ha) are in private 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6733 

ownership. Subunits A through G and 

subunit J (14,365 ac (5,813 ha)) were 

occupied at the time of listing and are 

currently occupied; subunits H and I 

(1,049 ac (425 ha)) were not occupied at 

the time of listing, but are currently 

occupied. 

Subunit A 

Unit FFS–1, Subunit A encompasses 

2,285 ac (925 ha) in Liberty County, 

Florida. Within this subunit, 1,976 ac 

(800 ha) are in the Apalachicola 

National Forest and 309 ac (125 ha) are 

in private ownership. Lands within this 

subunit owned by the U.S. Forest 

Service are likely protected from direct 

agricultural and urban development; 

however, threats remain to the frosted 

flatwoods salamander and its habitat 

that may require special management of 

the PCEs. This subunit requires special 

management to address threats 

including the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent 

highways and roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple frosted 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Subunit B 

Unit FFS–1, Subunit B encompasses 

733 ac (296 ha) in Liberty County, 

Florida. Within this subunit, 695 ac (281 

ha) are in the Apalachicola National 

Forest and 38 ac (15 ha) are in private 

ownership. Lands within this subunit 

owned by the U.S. Forest Service are 

protected from direct agricultural and 

urban development (Griep 2008); 

however, threats remain to the frosted 

flatwoods salamander and its habitat 

that may require special management of 

the PCEs. This subunit requires special 

management to address threats 

including the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent 

highways and roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple frosted 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Subunit C 

Unit FFS–1, Subunit C encompasses 

972 ac (393 ha) in Liberty County, 

Florida. All of this subunit is within the 

Apalachicola National Forest. Lands 

within this subunit are owned by the 

U.S. Forest Service and are likely 

protected from direct agricultural and 

urban development; however, threats 

remain to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and its habitat that may 

require special management of the PCEs. 

This subunit requires special 

management to address threats 

including the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent 

highways and roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple frosted 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Subunit D 

Unit FFS–1, Subunit D encompasses 

568 ac (230 ha) in Liberty County, 

Florida. All of this subunit is within the 

Apalachicola National Forest. Lands 

within this subunit are owned by the 

U.S. Forest Service and are likely 

protected from direct agricultural and 

urban development; however, threats 

remain to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and its habitat that may 

require special management of the PCEs. 

This subunit requires special 

management to address threats 

including the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent 

highways and roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple frosted 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Subunit E 

Unit FFS–1, Subunit E encompasses 

3,679 ac (1,489 ha) in Liberty County, 

Florida. Within this subunit, 3,473 ac 

(1,406 ha) are in the Apalachicola 

National Forest and 206 ac (83 ha) are 

in private ownership. Lands within this 

subunit owned by the U.S. Forest 

Service are likely protected from direct 

agricultural and urban development; 

however, threats remain to the frosted 

flatwoods salamander and its habitat 

that may require special management of 

the PCEs. This subunit requires special 

management to address threats 

including the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, potential hydrologic changes 

resulting from adjacent highways and 

roads that could alter the ecology of the 

breeding pond and surrounding 

terrestrial habitat, as well as agricultural 

and urban development. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple frosted 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Subunit F 

Unit FFS–1, Subunit F encompasses 

162 ac (66 ha) in Liberty County, 

Florida. All of this subunit is within the 

Apalachicola National Forest. Lands 

within this subunit are owned by the 

U.S. Forest Service and are likely 

protected from direct agricultural and 

urban development; however, threats 

remain to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and its habitat that may 

require special management of the PCEs. 

This subunit requires special 

management to address threats 

including the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent 

highways and roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple frosted 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Subunit G 

Unit FFS–1, Subunit G encompasses 

5,373 ac (2,175 ha) in Liberty County, 

Florida. Within this subunit, 5,277 ac 

(2,136 ha) are in the Apalachicola 

National Forest and 96 ac (39 ha) are in 

private ownership. Lands within this 

subunit owned by the U.S. Forest 

Service are likely protected from direct 

agricultural and urban development; 

however, threats remain to the frosted 

flatwoods salamander and its habitat 

that may require special management of 

the PCEs. This subunit requires special 

management to address threats 

including the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, potential hydrologic changes 

resulting from adjacent highways and 

roads that could alter the ecology of the 

breeding pond and surrounding 

terrestrial habitat, as well as agricultural 

and urban development. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple frosted 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Subunit H 

Unit FFS–1, Subunit H encompasses 

887 ac (359 ha) in Liberty County, 

Florida. Within this subunit, 861 ac (348 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6734 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

ha) are in the Apalachicola National 

Forest, 22 ac (9 ha) are under State 

management, and 4 ac (2 ha) are in 

private ownership. This subunit was not 

occupied at the time of listing, but is 

currently occupied. The currently 

occupied habitat of the flatwoods 

salamander is highly localized and 

fragmented. Flatwoods salamanders are 

particularly susceptible to drought, as 

breeding cannot occur if breeding ponds 

do not receive adequate rainfall. These 

small populations are at a high risk of 

extinction due to random events such as 

drought, and human-induced threats 

such as urban-agricultural development 

and habitat degradation due to fire 

suppression and hydrological 

alterations. Thus, to ensure the 

persistence and conservation of this 

species throughout its current 

geographic and ecological distribution 

despite fluctuations in the status of 

subpopulations, we have determined 

that this subunit, although not occupied 

at the time of listing, is essential for the 

conservation of the species. Lands 

within this subunit owned by the U.S. 

Forest Service are likely protected from 

direct agricultural and urban 

development. All lands designated as 

critical habitat contain all PCEs and 

support multiple frosted flatwoods 

salamander life processes. 

Subunit I 

Unit FFS–1, Subunit I encompasses 

162 ac (66 ha) within the Apalachicola 

National Forest in Liberty County, 

Florida. This subunit was not occupied 

at the time of listing, but is currently 

occupied. The currently occupied 

habitat of the flatwoods salamander is 

highly localized and fragmented. 

Flatwoods salamanders are particularly 

susceptible to drought, as breeding 

cannot occur if breeding ponds do not 

receive adequate rainfall. These small 

populations are at a high risk of 

extinction due to random events such as 

drought, and human-induced threats 

such as urban-agricultural development 

and habitat degradation due to fire 

suppression and hydrological 

alterations. Thus, to ensure the 

persistence and conservation of this 

species throughout its current 

geographic and ecological distribution 

despite fluctuations in the status of 

subpopulations, we have determined 

that this subunit is essential for the 

conservation of the species. Lands 

within this subunit are owned by the 

U.S. Forest Service and are likely 

protected from direct agricultural and 

urban development. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple frosted 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Subunit J 

Unit FFS–1, Subunit J encompasses 

593 ac (240 ha) in Franklin County, 

Florida. All of this subunit is within the 

Apalachicola National Forest. Lands 

within this subunit are owned by the 

U.S. Forest Service and are likely 

protected from direct agricultural and 

urban development; however, threats 

remain to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and its habitat that may 

require special management of the PCEs. 

This subunit requires special 

management to address threats 

including the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent 

highways and roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple frosted 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Unit FFS–3 

Unit FFS–3, which was occupied at 

the time of listing, is comprised of three 

subunits encompassing 5,045 ac (2,042 

ha) in Jefferson and Wakulla Counties, 

Florida. Within this unit, 2,049 ac (829 

ha) are on St. Marks National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR) (managed by the Service), 

85 ac (34 ha) are in the Aucilla Wildlife 

Management Area managed by the State 

of Florida, and 2,911 ac (1,178 ha) are 

in private ownership. 

Subunit A 

Unit FFS–3, Subunit A encompasses 

3,078 ac (1,245 ha) on Federal and 

private land in Wakulla County, Florida. 

This subunit is located south of U.S. 

Hwy. 98 and southeast of the town of 

Newport, Florida. Within this subunit, 

1,456 ac (589 ha) are in the St. Marks 

NWR and 1,622 ac (656 ha) are in 

private ownership. Portions of this 

subunit that are within Federal 

ownership are likely protected from 

direct agricultural and urban 

development; however, threats remain 

to the frosted flatwoods salamander and 

its habitat that may require special 

management of the PCEs. This subunit 

requires special management to address 

threats including the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent 

highways and roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. In 

addition, run-off from highways can 

introduce toxic chemicals into breeding 

sites. Special management is needed to 

address the threats of agricultural and 

urban development on portions of the 

unit within private ownership. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple frosted 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Subunit B 

Unit FFS–3, Subunit B encompasses 

1,804 ac (730 ha) on Federal and private 

land. This subunit is located south of 

U.S. Hwy. 98 in southeastern Wakulla 

and southwestern Jefferson counties. 

Within this subunit, 593 ac (240 ha) are 

in the St. Marks NWR and 1,211 ac (490 

ha) are in private ownership. Portions of 

this subunit that are within Federal 

ownership are likely protected from 

direct agricultural and urban 

development; however, threats remain 

to the frosted flatwoods salamander and 

its habitat that may require special 

management of the PCEs. This subunit 

requires special management to address 

threats including the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent 

highways and roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. In 

addition, run-off from highways can 

introduce toxic chemicals into breeding 

sites. Special management is needed to 

address the threats of agricultural and 

urban development on portions of the 

unit within private ownership. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple frosted 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Subunit C 

Unit FFS–3, Subunit C encompasses 

163 ac (66 ha) in Jefferson County, 

Florida. Within this subunit, 85 ac (34 

ha) are in the Aucilla Wildlife 

Management Area managed by the State 

of Florida and 78 ac (32 ha) are in 

private ownership. This subunit is 

bisected by State Hwy. 59, 5.3 mi (8.4 

km) north of U.S. Hwy. 98, and 

approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) east of the 

Jefferson-Wakulla County line. Portions 

of this subunit that are within State 

ownership are likely protected from 

direct agricultural and urban 

development; however, threats remain 

to the frosted flatwoods salamander and 

its habitat that may require special 

management of the PCEs. This subunit 

requires special management to address 

threats including the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6735 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent 

highways and roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. In 

addition, run-off from highways can 

introduce toxic chemicals into breeding 

sites. Special management is needed to 

address the threats of agricultural and 

urban development on portions of the 

unit within private ownership. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple frosted 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Unit FFS–4 

Unit FFS–4 is comprised of two 

subunits encompassing 712 ac (288 ha) 

in Baker County, Florida. Within this 

unit, which was occupied at the time of 

listing, 550 ac (223 ha) are on Osceola 

NF and 162 ac (66 ha) are in private 

ownership. 

Subunit A 

Unit FFS–4, Subunit A encompasses 

550 ac (223 ha) on the Osceola National 

Forest in Baker County, Florida. This 

subunit is located adjacent and south of 

Interstate 10 in the southwestern corner 

of Baker County between State 

Highways 250 and 229. Portions of this 

subunit within Federal ownership are 

likely protected from direct agricultural 

and urban development; however, 

threats remain to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and its habitat that may 

require special management of the PCEs. 

This subunit requires special 

management to address threats 

including the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent 

highways and roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. In 

addition, run-off from highways can 

introduce toxic chemicals into breeding 

sites. All lands designated as critical 

habitat contain all PCEs and support 

multiple frosted flatwoods salamander 

life processes. 

Subunit B 

Unit FFS–4, Subunit B encompasses 

162 ac (66 ha) on private land in Baker 

County, Florida. This subunit occurs 

approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) south of 

State Hwy. 229 and 3.5 mi (5.6 km) 

north of Interstate 10. This subunit 

requires special management to address 

threats including the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent 

highways and roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat, as well 

as agricultural and urban development. 

In addition, run-off from highways can 

introduce toxic chemicals into breeding 

sites. All lands designated as critical 

habitat contain all PCEs and support 

multiple frosted flatwoods salamander 

life processes. 

Unit FFS–5 

Unit FFS–5 is comprised of two 

subunits encompassing 337 ac (136 ha) 

on privately owned land in Jasper 

County, South Carolina. Both subunits 

were occupied at the time of listing and 

are currently occupied. 

Subunit A 

Unit FFS–5, Subunit A encompasses 

154 ac (62 ha) on private land in Jasper 

County, South Carolina. This subunit is 

bisected by State Hwy. 46 and occurs 

near a rapidly developing area of Jasper 

County. Within this subunit, threats to 

the frosted flatwoods salamander and its 

habitat that may require special 

management of the PCEs include the 

potential for fire suppression, potential 

expansion of agriculture and residential 

development into the unit, potential 

detrimental alterations in forestry 

practices that could destroy the belowground soils structure, potential 

hydrologic changes resulting from 

adjacent roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 

surrounding terrestrial habitat, and 

future habitat destruction due to urban 

and commercial development. In 

addition, run-off from highways can 

introduce toxic chemicals into breeding 

sites. All lands designated as critical 

habitat contain all PCEs and support 

multiple frosted flatwoods salamander 

life processes. 

Subunit B 

Unit FFS–5, Subunit B encompasses 

183 ac (74 ha) on private land in Jasper 

County, South Carolina. This subunit is 

bisected by a county road, 

approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) west of 

U.S. Hwy. 321, northwest of 

Hardeeville, South Carolina. Within this 

subunit, threats to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and its habitat that may 

require special management of the PCEs 

include the potential for fire 

suppression, potential expansion of 

agriculture and residential development 

into the unit, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soils 

structure, potential hydrologic changes 

resulting from adjacent roads that could 

alter the ecology of the breeding pond 

and surrounding terrestrial habitat, and 

future habitat destruction due to urban 

and commercial development. In 

addition, run-off from highways can 

introduce toxic chemicals into breeding 

sites. All lands designated as critical 

habitat contain all PCEs and support 

multiple frosted flatwoods salamander 

life processes. 

Unit FFS–6 

Unit FFS–6, occupied at the time of 

listing, encompasses 1,300 ac (526 ha) 

on Federal and private land in Berkeley 

County, South Carolina. This unit is 

bisected by State Highway 41 

approximately 10 mi (16 km) south of 

the town of Huger. Within this unit, 

1,176 ac (476 ha) are in the Francis 

Marion National Forest and 124 ac (50 

ha) are on private land. Land within this 

subunit owned by the U.S. Forest 

Service is protected from agricultural 

and urban development; however, 

threats remain to frosted flatwoods 

salamander habitat that may require 

special management of the PCEs. These 

threats include the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent 

highways and roads that could alter the 

ecological functioning of the breeding 

pond and surrounding terrestrial 

habitat. Special management of the 

PCEs may also be required for the 

threats posed by agricultural and urban 

development on the lands in private 

ownership. All lands designated as 

critical habitat contain all PCEs and 

support multiple frosted flatwoods 

salamander life processes. 

Unit FFS–7 

Unit FFS–7 encompasses 162 ac (66 

ha) on the Santee Coastal Reserve 

(managed by the State of South 

Carolina) in Charleston County, South 

Carolina. Approximately 0.32 ac (0.13 

ha) on private land are also included 

within this unit. Since most of this unit, 

which was occupied at the time of 

listing, is owned by the State of South 

Carolina, it is likely protected from 

direct agricultural and urban 

development; however, threats remain 

to the frosted flatwoods salamander and 

its habitat that may require special 

management of the PCEs. Threats 

include the potential for fire 

suppression, potential detrimental 

alterations in forestry practices that 

could destroy the below-ground soil 

structure, and potential hydrologic 

changes resulting from adjacent 

highways and roads that could alter the 

ecology of the breeding pond and 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6736 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands 

designated as critical habitat contain all 

PCEs and support multiple frosted 

flatwoods salamander life processes. 

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation 

Section 7 Consultation 

Section 7 of the Act requires Federal 

agencies to ensure that actions they 

fund, authorize, or carry out are not 

likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a listed species or destroy 

or adversely modify designated critical 

habitat. Decisions by the 5th and 9th 

Circuit Courts of Appeals have 

invalidated our definition of 

‘‘destruction or adverse modification’’ 

(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot 

Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) 

and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, et al., 245 F.3d 434, 

442F (5th Cir 2001)), and we do not rely 

on this regulatory definition when 

analyzing whether an action is likely to 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat. Under the statutory provisions 

of the Act, we determine destruction or 

adverse modification on the basis of 

whether, with implementation of the 

proposed Federal action, the affected 

critical habitat would remain functional 

(or retain the current ability for the PCEs 

to be functionally established) to serve 

its intended conservation role for the 

species. 

Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, if a 

Federal action may affect a listed 

species or its critical habitat, the 

responsible Federal agency (action 

agency) must enter into consultation 

with us. As a result of this consultation, 

we document compliance with the 

requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 

our issuance of: 

(1) A concurrence letter for Federal 

actions that may affect, but are not 

likely to adversely affect, listed species 

or critical habitat; or 

(2) A biological opinion for Federal 

actions that are likely to adversely affect 

listed species or critical habitat. 

When we issue a biological opinion 

concluding that a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat, we also provide 

reasonable and prudent alternatives to 

the project, if any are identifiable. We 

define ‘‘Reasonable and prudent 

alternatives’’ at 50 CFR 402.02 as 

alternative actions identified during 

consultation that: 

• Can be implemented in a manner 

consistent with the intended purpose of 

the action, 

• Can be implemented consistent 

with the scope of the Federal agency’s 

legal authority and jurisdiction, 

• Are economically and 

technologically feasible, and 

• Would, in the Director’s opinion, 

avoid jeopardizing the continued 

existence of the listed species or 

destroying or adversely modifying 

critical habitat. 

Reasonable and prudent alternatives can 

vary from slight project modifications to 

extensive redesign or relocation of the 

project. Costs associated with 

implementing a reasonable and prudent 

alternative are similarly variable. 

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require 

Federal agencies to reinitiate 

consultation on previously reviewed 

actions in instances where we have 

listed a new species or subsequently 

designated critical habitat that may be 

affected and the Federal agency has 

retained discretionary involvement or 

control over the action (or the agency’s 

discretionary involvement or control is 

authorized by law). Consequently, 

Federal agencies may sometimes need to 

request reinitiation of consultation with 

us on actions for which formal 

consultation has been completed, if 

those actions with discretionary 

involvement or control may affect 

subsequently listed species or 

designated critical habitat. 

Federal activities that may affect the 

frosted flatwoods or reticulated 

flatwoods salamanders or their 

designated critical habitat will require 

section 7(a)(2) consultation under the 

Act. Activities on State, tribal, local, or 

private lands requiring a Federal permit 

(such as a permit from the Corps under 

section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 

U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from us 

under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act) or 

involving some other Federal action 

(such as funding from the Federal 

Highway Administration, Federal 

Aviation Administration, or the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency) are 

examples of agency actions that may be 

subject to the section 7(a)(2) 

consultation process. Federal actions 

not affecting listed species or critical 

habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, 

local or private lands that are not 

federally funded, authorized, or 

permitted, do not require section 7(a)(2) 

consultations. 

Application of the ‘‘Adverse 

Modification’’ Standard 

The key factor related to the adverse 

modification determination is whether, 

with implementation of the proposed 

Federal action, the affected critical 

habitat would continue to serve its 

intended conservation role for the 

species, or would retain its current 

ability for the primary constituent 

elements to be functionally established. 

Activities that may destroy or adversely 

modify critical habitat are those that 

alter the physical and biological features 

to an extent that appreciably reduces the 

conservation value of critical habitat for 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

and the frosted flatwoods salamander. 

Generally, the conservation role of 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and 

frosted flatwoods salamander critical 

habitat units is to support viable core 

areas for the species. 

Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us 

to briefly evaluate and describe, in any 

final regulation that designates critical 

habitat, activities involving a Federal 

action that may destroy or adversely 

modify such habitat, or that may be 

affected by such designation. 

Activities that, when carried out, 

funded, or authorized by a Federal 

agency, may affect critical habitat and 

therefore should result in consultation 

for the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

and the frosted flatwoods salamander 

include, but are not limited to: 

(1) Actions that would significantly 

alter water chemistry in reticulated 

flatwoods salamander or frosted 

flatwoods salamander breeding ponds. 

Such activities could include, but are 

not limited to, the release of chemicals, 

biological pollutants, or sedimentation 

into the surface water or connected 

groundwater at a point source or by 

dispersed release (non-point source) via 

road construction, urban and 

agricultural development, ditching, 

timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, and 

other watershed disturbances. These 

activities could alter the condition of 

the water beyond the tolerances of the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and 

frosted flatwoods salamander and their 

respective food bases, resulting in direct 

or cumulative adverse effects to 

individuals and their life cycles. 

(2) Actions that would significantly 

alter the hydroperiod and vegetation of 

a reticulated flatwoods salamander or a 

frosted flatwoods salamander breeding 

pond. Such activities could include, but 

are not limited to, road construction; 

urban and agricultural development; 

dredging, ditching, or filling ponds; fire 

suppression; and timber harvesting and 

replanting. These activities could alter 

the hydrologic timing, duration, or 

water flows of a pond basin, as well as 

alter the constituent vegetation. They 

could also increase the connectivity of 

breeding ponds to more permanent 

waters, which would allow the invasion 

of predatory fish. As a result, the habitat 

necessary for reticulated flatwoods 

salamander or frosted flatwoods 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6737 

salamander reproduction and the 

growth and development of eggs and 

juvenile salamanders would be reduced 

or eliminated. 

(3) Actions that would significantly 

alter the terrestrial forested habitat of 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander or 

the frosted flatwoods salamander. Such 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to, road construction, urban and 

agricultural development, dredging, 

ditching, fire suppression, and timber 

harvesting and replanting. These 

activities may lead to changes in soil 

moisture, soil below-ground structure, 

soil temperatures, and vegetation that 

would degrade or eliminate the 

terrestrial habitat of the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander or frosted 

flatwoods salamander. 

Please see ‘‘Special Management 

Considerations or Protection’’ section 

for a more detailed discussion on the 

impacts of these actions to the listed 

species. 

Exemptions and Exclusions 

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act 

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 

1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 

required each military installation that 

includes land and water suitable for the 

conservation and management of 

natural resources to complete an 

integrated natural resource management 

plan (INRMP) by November 17, 2001. 

An INRMP integrates implementation of 

the military mission of the installation 

with stewardship of the natural 

resources found on the base. Each 

INRMP includes: 

• An assessment of the ecological 

needs on the installation, including the 

need to provide for the conservation of 

listed species; 

• A statement of goals and priorities; 

• A detailed description of 

management actions to be implemented 

to provide for these ecological needs; 

and 

• A monitoring and adaptive 

management plan. 

Among other things, each INRMP must, 

to the extent appropriate and applicable, 

provide for fish and wildlife 

management; fish and wildlife habitat 

enhancement or modification; wetland 

protection, enhancement, and 

restoration where necessary to support 

fish and wildlife; and enforcement of 

applicable natural resource laws. 

The National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108– 

136) amended the Act to limit areas 

eligible for designation as critical 

habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) 

of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) 

now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not 

designate as critical habitat any lands or 

other geographical areas owned or 

controlled by the Department of 

Defense, or designated for its use, that 

are subject to an integrated natural 

resources management plan prepared 

under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 

U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines 

in writing that such plan provides a 

benefit to the species for which critical 

habitat is proposed for designation.’’ 

We consult with the military on the 

development and implementation of 

INRMPs for installations with listed 

species. The Service reviewed each of 

the INRMPs described below prior to 

their finalization and has provided 

input into strategies for monitoring and 

management of endangered species 

including the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander and frosted flatwoods 

salamander. Each military facility has 

been conducting surveys and habitat 

management to benefit the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander or the frosted 

flatwoods salamander and reporting the 

results of their efforts to the Service. 

Cooperation between the military 

facilities and the Service on specific 

conservation measures continues. 

INRMPs developed by military 

installations located within the range of 

the critical habitat designation for the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and 

the frosted flatwoods salamander were 

analyzed for exemption under the 

authority of 4(a)(3) of the Act. 

Approved INRMPs 

Navy Outlying Landing Field Holley 

(NOLF Holley) 

NOLF Holley is located in Santa Rosa 

County, Florida, and has approximately 

289 ac (117 ha) of habitat with features 

essential to the conservation of the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander. In 

2006, the U.S. Department of the Navy 

(DoN) drafted a revision of its 2001 

INRMP for Naval Air Station Whiting 

Field Complex, of which NOLF Holley 

is a part (DoN 2006, pp. 5–68, 5–70, 5– 

73, 5–76, 5–77, 6–22, 6–23, A–16). The 

revised INRMP outlines management for 

5 years (2007–2011). We have examined 

this document and determined that it 

does provide conservation measures for 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander, as 

well as for the management of important 

wetland and upland habitats at NOLF 

Holley. The area of NOLF Holley where 

reticulated flatwoods salamander 

habitat is located has been designated as 

a Protected Area. The INRMP outlines a 

Special Management Initiative for the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander, 

which includes a prescribed burning 

program, strategies to identify 

salamander distribution and habitat, 

control of invasive species, enforcement 

of restrictions on off-road vehicle use, 

and forest management consistent with 

recommendations in the final listing 

rule (64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999). 

Although we had received information 

in 2007 that the Navy was considering 

selling NOLF Holley and as a result 

were concerned about implementation 

of the INRMP, the Navy has assured us 

that it has no plans to transfer 

ownership of the site and it intends to 

continue stewardship of the salamander 

and its habitat (DoN 2008, p. 2). 

Based on the above considerations, 

and consistent with the direction 

provided in section 4(a)(3)B)(i) of the 

Act, we have determined that 

conservation efforts identified in the 

INRMP will provide benefits to the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and 

the features essential to the species’ 

conservation occurring on NOLF Holley. 

In our analyses, we have taken into 

consideration that the INRMP does not 

protect the habitat from future 

destruction or modification associated 

with development, however, we know 

of no such potential threat at this time. 

Therefore, this installation is exempt 

from critical habitat designation under 

section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not 

including approximately 289 ac (117 ha) 

of habitat in the final critical habitat 

designation for the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander because of this exemption. 

Hurlburt Field 

Hurlburt Field is located in Okaloosa 

County, Florida, and has approximately 

712 ac (288 ha) of habitat with features 

essential to the conservation of the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander. The 

U.S. Department of Defense-Air Force 

finalized a revision to the INRMP for 

Hurlburt Field in 2008 (DoD 2008, pp. 

1–152). The INRMP will continue to be 

reviewed annually to monitor the 

effectiveness of the plan, and be 

reviewed every five years to develop 

revisions and updates as necessary. We 

have examined this document and 

determined that it does outline 

conservation measures for the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander, as 

well as management plans for important 

wetland and upland habitats at Hurlburt 

Field. The INRMP outlines goals and 

objectives for the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander and its habitat that include 

a prescribed burning program, strategies 

to identify and monitor salamander 

distribution and habitat, control of 

invasive species, and forest management 

consistent with recommendations in the 

final listing rule (DoD 2008, pp. 61, 79, 

133–151). 

Based on the above considerations, 

and consistent with the direction 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6738 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

provided in section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the 

Act, we have determined that 

conservation efforts identified in the 

INRMP will provide a benefit to the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and 

the features essential to the species’ 

conservation occurring in habitats 

within Hurlburt Field. Therefore, this 

installation is exempt from critical 

habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) 

of the Act. We are not including 

approximately 712 ac (288 ha) of habitat 

in this final designation of critical 

habitat because of this exemption. 

Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin) 

Eglin is located in Okaloosa and Santa 

Rosa counties, Florida, and has 

approximately 1,880 ac (761 ha) of 

habitat with features essential to the 

conservation of the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander. The Department 

of Defense completed the update of its 

INRMP for Eglin in 2007 (DoD 2007, pp. 

124–126, 181). This INRMP covers a 

period of 5 years from 2007 through 

2011. A separate threatened and 

endangered species component plan has 

been written and contains specific 

monitoring and management actions for 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

(DoD 2006a, pp. 53–64, 240–242). The 

INRMP and component plan outline a 

management direction for the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander that 

includes a prescribed burning program, 

strategies to identify and monitor 

salamander distribution and habitat, 

control of invasive species, and forest 

management consistent with 

recommendations in the final listing 

rule (64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999). In 

2007, it came to our attention (Arnold 

2007) that a road had been proposed 

which could cross Eglin within the 

habitat with features essential to the 

conservation of the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander. However, during 

the open comment period Eglin assured 

us that it will not allow negative 

impacts to the salamander’s habitat and 

that it will continue to ensure the 

conservation of the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander. 

Based on the above considerations, 

and consistent with the direction 

provided in section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the 

Act, we have determined that the 

INRMP will provide a benefit to the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and 

the features essential to the species’ 

conservation occurring on Eglin. 

Therefore, approximately 1,880 ac (761 

ha) of habitat on Eglin with features 

essential to the conservation of the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander are 

exempt from this final critical habitat 

designation under section 4(a)(3) of the 

Act. 

Fort Stewart Military Installation (Fort 

Stewart) 

Fort Stewart, U.S. Army installation, 

is located in Bryan, Evans, Liberty, 

Long, and Tattnall Counties, Georgia 

and has approximately 5,121 ac (2,072 

ha) of habitat with features essential to 

the conservation of the frosted 

flatwoods salamander. The first INRMP 

(INRMP I) for Fort Stewart was 

completed in 2001 and updated in 2005 

(DoD 2005, pp. 1, 22, 34, 76–77). Each 

INRMP covers a period of 5 years with 

a subsequent review and update every 5 

years. Additionally, an annual review of 

management implementation is 

conducted and, if necessary, the INRMP 

is adapted to address needed 

improvements. The management 

direction from INRMP I is being 

continued in the review. We have 

examined this document and 

determined that it does provide 

conservation measures for the frosted 

flatwoods salamander, as well as for the 

management of important wetland and 

upland habitats at Fort Stewart. The 

INRMP outlines management activities 

to be conducted for the frosted 

flatwoods salamander (DoD 2005, p. 22). 

These include a prescribed burning 

program, strategies to identify and 

monitor frosted flatwoods salamander 

distribution and habitat, control of 

invasive species, and forest management 

consistent with recommendations in the 

final listing rule (64 FR 15691; April 1, 

1999). At this time, we know of no 

proposed projects outside the scope of 

the INRMP which would threaten the 

frosted flatwoods salamander or its 

habitat. 

Based on the above considerations, 

and consistent with the direction 

provided in section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the 

Act, we have determined that 

conservation identified in the INRMP 

will provide benefits to the frosted 

flatwoods salamander and the features 

essential to the species’ conservation 

occurring on Fort Stewart Military 

Installation. In our analyses, we have 

taken into consideration that the INRMP 

does not protect the habitat from future 

destruction or modification associated 

with development, however, we know 

of no such potential threat at this time. 

Therefore, approximately 5,121 ac 

(2,072 ha) of habitat with features 

essential to the conservation of the 

frosted flatwoods salamander within 

Fort Stewart Military Installation are 

exempt from this final designation of 

critical habitat for the frosted flatwoods 

salamander under section 4(a)(3) of the 

Act. 

Townsend Bombing Range (Townsend) 

Townsend is located in McIntosh 

County, Georgia, and contains 

approximately 162 ac (66 ha) of habitat 

with features essential to the 

conservation of the frosted flatwoods 

salamander. The property is owned by 

the U.S. Department of the Navy and the 

land is managed by Marine Corps Air 

Station, Beaufort, South Carolina 

(MCAS Beaufort). The original INRMP 

written in 2001 for Townsend has been 

renewed to cover the period November 

2006 through October 2011 (DoD 2006b, 

pp. ES–1, ES–2, 1–3, 1–8, 1–9, 1–10, 3– 

15, 4–4, 4–8, 4–9, 4–10, 4–11, 4–19, 4– 

20, 4–22, 4–23, 4–27, 4–28, 4–29). We 

have examined this document and 

determined that it does provide 

conservation measures for the frosted 

flatwoods salamander, as well as for the 

management of important wetland and 

upland habitats at Townsend. The 

INRMP includes activities to maintain 

or increase the salamander’s population 

on Townsend through improvement of 

terrestrial habitat through use of 

prescribed fire and improvement of 

water quality and hydrologic regime of 

the breeding ponds. The INRMP 

provides biological goals and objectives, 

measures of success, provisions for 

annual monitoring and adaptive 

management, and provisions for 

reporting. The INRMP outlines projects 

that would benefit the frosted flatwoods 

salamander including a prescribed 

burning program, strategies to identify 

and monitor salamander distribution 

and habitat, control of invasive species, 

and forest management consistent with 

recommendations in the final listing 

rule (64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999). 

Based on the above considerations, 

and in accordance with section 

4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have 

determined that conservation efforts 

identified in the INRMP will provide 

benefits to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and the features essential to 

the species’ conservation occurring in 

habitats within or adjacent to the 

Townsend Bombing Range. In our 

analyses, we have taken into 

consideration that the INRMP does not 

protect the habitat from future 

destruction or modification associated 

with development, however, we know 

of no such potential threat at this time. 

Therefore, approximately 162 ac (66 ha) 

of habitat with features essential to the 

conservation of the frosted flatwoods 

salamander on Townsend are exempt 

from final critical habitat designation 

under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6739 

Application of Exclusions Under 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that 

the Secretary must designate and revise 

critical habitat on the basis of the best 

available scientific data after taking into 

consideration the economic impact, 

national security impact, and any other 

relevant impact of specifying any 

particular area as critical habitat. The 

Secretary may exclude an area from 

critical habitat if he determines that the 

benefits of such exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of specifying such area as part 

of the critical habitat, unless he 

determines, based on the best scientific 

data available, that the failure to 

designate such area as critical habitat 

will result in the extinction of the 

species. In making that determination, 

the statute as well as the legislative 

history are clear that the Secretary has 

broad discretion regarding which 

factor(s) to use and how much weight to 

give to any factor. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in 

considering whether to exclude a 

particular area from the designation, we 

must identify the benefits of including 

the area in the designation, identify the 

benefits of excluding the area from the 

designation, and determine whether the 

benefits of exclusion outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion. If based on this 

analysis we determine that the benefits 

of exclusion would outweigh the 

benefits of inclusion of an area, then we 

can exclude the area only if such 

exclusions would not result in the 

extinction of the species. 

Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we 

must consider all relevant impacts, 

including economic impacts. We 

consider a number of factors in a section 

4(b)(2) analysis. For example, we 

consider whether there are lands owned 

or managed by the Department of 

Defense where a national security 

impact might exist. We also consider 

whether landowners having proposed 

critical habitat on their lands have 

developed any conservation plans for 

the area, or whether there are 

conservation partnerships that would be 

encouraged by designation of, or 

exclusion from, critical habitat. In 

addition, we look at any Tribal issues, 

and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United 

States with Tribal entities. We also 

consider any social or other impacts that 

might occur because of the designation. 

In the proposed rule, we requested 

comments regarding information 

supporting or opposing possible 

exclusion of units within National 

Forests from critical habitat in the final 

designation. In this instance, we have 

examined all comments submitted and 

evaluated the Forest Management Plans 

for Francis Marion, Osceola, and 

Apalachicola National Forests with 

respect to providing adequate protection 

and management for the flatwoods 

salamander. None of these Plans 

provide sufficient protection and 

management to satisfy the criteria 

necessary for exclusion from final 

critical habitat. 

On the other hand, we have 

determined that the lands designated as 

critical habitat for the frosted and 

reticulated flatwoods salamanders are 

not currently included in habitat 

conservation plans (HCPs) for these 

species and that the designation does 

not include any Tribal lands or trust 

resources. We anticipate no impact to 

national security, Tribal lands, 

partnerships, or HCPs from this critical 

habitat designation. 

Economic Analysis (EA) 

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that 

we designate or revise critical habitat 

based upon the best scientific data 

available, after taking into consideration 

the economic impact, impact on 

national security, or any other relevant 

impact of specifying any particular area 

as critical habitat. In compliance with 

section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we have 

prepared an EA of this final designation 

of critical habitat for the frosted and 

reticulated flatwoods salamanders. 

The final EA (Industrial Economics 

2008b) considers the potential economic 

effects of actions relating to the 

conservation of the frosted and 

reticulated flatwoods salamanders, 

including costs associated with sections 

4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including 

those attributable to designating critical 

habitat. It further considers the 

economic effects of protective measures 

taken as a result of other Federal, State, 

and local laws that aid habitat 

conservation for the frosted and 

reticulated flatwoods salamanders in 

essential habitat areas. The EA 

considers both economic efficiency and 

distributional effects. In the case of 

habitat conservation, efficiency effects 

generally reflect the ‘‘opportunity costs’’ 

associated with the commitment of 

resources to comply with habitat 

protection measures (for example, lost 

economic opportunities associated with 

restrictions on land use). 

The EA also addresses how potential 

economic impacts are likely to be 

distributed, including an assessment of 

any local or regional impacts of habitat 

conservation and the potential effects of 

conservation activities on small entities 

and the energy industry. This 

information can be used by decisionmakers to assess whether the effects of 

the designation might unduly burden a 

particular group or economic sector. 

Finally, the EA considers those costs 

that may occur in the 20 years following 

a designation of critical habitat. 

Pre-critical-habitat designation (or 

pre-designation) (1999–2008) costs 

associated with species conservation 

activities are estimated at $2.08 million 

discounted at 7 percent (Industrial 

Economics 2008b, p. B–4). Potential 

post-critical-habitat designation (or 

post-designation) (2009–2028) costs are 

estimated to range between $3.88 and 

$6.40 million at a 3 percent discount 

rate and between $2.49 and $4.38 

million at a 7 percent discount rate 

(Industrial Economics 2008b, p. B–5). In 

annualized terms, potential postdesignation costs are expected to range 

from $261,000 to $430,000 annualized 

at 3 percent and $235,000 to $413,000 

annualized at 7 percent (Industrial 

Economics 2008b, p. B–5). 

Because our EA did not identify any 

disproportionate costs that are likely to 

result from the designation, we did not 

consider excluding any areas from this 

designation of critical habitat for the 

frosted or reticulated flatwoods 

salamanders based on economic 

impacts. 

A copy of the final EA with 

supporting documents is included in 

our administrative record and may be 

obtained by contacting U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered 

Species (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT) or by downloading from the 

Internet at www.regulations.gov/. 

Therefore, there are no areas excluded 

from this final critical habitat 

designation under section 4(b)(2). 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review 

(Executive Order 12866) 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has determined that this rule is 

not significant under Executive Order 

12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB bases its 

determination upon the following four 

criteria: 

(a) Whether the rule will have an 

annual effect of $100 million or more on 

the economy or adversely affect an 

economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 

environment, or other units of the 

government. 

(b) Whether the rule will create 

inconsistencies with other Federal 

agencies’ actions. 

(c) Whether the rule will materially 

affect entitlements, grants, user fees, 

loan programs, or the rights and 

obligations of their recipients. 

(d) Whether the rule raises novel legal 

or policy issues. 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6740 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as amended 

by the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996), whenever an agency must 

publish a notice of rulemaking for any 

proposed or final rule, it must prepare 

and make available for public comment 

a regulatory flexibility analysis that 

describes the effects of the rule on small 

entities (small businesses, small 

organizations, and small government 

jurisdictions). However, no regulatory 

flexibility analysis is required if the 

head of the agency certifies the rule will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. SBREFA amended RFA to 

require Federal agencies to provide a 

statement of the factual basis for 

certifying that the rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. In 

this final rule, we are certifying that the 

critical habitat designation for the 

frosted and reticulated flatwoods 

salamanders will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. The following 

discussion explains our rationale. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration (SBA), small entities 

include small organizations, such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; as well as small 

businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small 

businesses include manufacturing and 

mining concerns with fewer than 500 

employees, wholesale trade entities 

with fewer than 100 employees, retail 

and service businesses with less than $5 

million in annual sales, general and 

heavy construction businesses with less 

than $27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

agricultural businesses with annual 

sales less than $750,000. To determine 

if potential economic impacts to these 

small entities are significant, we 

consider the types of activities that 

might trigger regulatory impacts under 

this rule, as well as the types of project 

modifications that may result. In 

general, the term ‘‘significant economic 

impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical 

small business firm’s business 

operations. 

To determine if the final designation 

of critical habitat for the frosted and 

reticulated flatwoods salamanders could 

significantly affect a substantial number 

of small entities, we considered the 

number of small entities affected within 

particular types of economic activities 

(for example, housing development, 

grazing, oil and gas production, timber 

harvesting). We considered each 

industry or category individually to 

determine if certification is appropriate. 

In estimating the numbers of small 

entities potentially affected, we also 

considered whether their activities have 

any Federal involvement; some kinds of 

activities are unlikely to have any 

Federal involvement and so will not be 

affected by the designation of critical 

habitat. Designation of critical habitat 

only affects activities conducted, 

funded, permitted, or authorized by 

Federal agencies; non-Federal activities 

are not affected by the designation. 

Typically, when final critical habitat 

designations are made final, Federal 

agencies must consult with us if their 

activities may affect that designated 

critical habitat. Consultations to avoid 

the destruction or adverse modification 

of critical habitat would be incorporated 

into the existing consultation process. 

The EA for the frosted and reticulated 

flatwoods salamanders evaluated the 

potential for economic impacts related 

to several categories, including (1) 

timber management; (2) development; 

(3) other activities, including road 

construction, species management, fire 

management and recreation (Industrial 

Economics 2008b, p. A–2). Based on our 

analysis, only small business entities 

that rely on land development are 

expected to be affected by conservation 

efforts for the frosted and reticulated 

flatwoods salamanders. Therefore, the 

screening analysis focused on 

incremental impacts to development 

activities. Six small businesses may be 

affected with an average high-end 

potential per business impact of $46,100 

(Industrial Economics 2008b, p. A–6) for 

both species. Potential high-end 

incremental impacts per landowner 

range from $6,770 in FFS–1 to $102,000 

in RFS–3. Potentially affected 

developable acres in the final critical 

habitat designation are small relative to 

the total number of developable acres in 

these counties. Regional businesses that 

support or are supported by 

development (such as construction 

companies, hardware suppliers, or 

lumberyards) in these counties are not 

expected to be measurably affected by 

salamander conservation (Industrial 

Economics 2008b, p. A–6). In addition, 

‘‘downstream’’ impacts are not 

measurable due to the small proportion 

of all developable lands that are 

projected to be impacted by salamander 

conservation measures (as measured at 

the county level) (Industrial Economics 

2008b, p. A–3). 

In summary, we have considered 

whether this final designation of critical 

habitat would result in a significant 

economic effect on a substantial number 

of small entities. We have determined, 

for the above reasons and based on 

currently available information, that it is 

not likely to affect a substantial number 

of small entities. Therefore, we certify 

that this final regulation will not result 

in a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small business 

entities. Please refer to our EA of this 

designation for a more detailed 

discussion of potential economic 

impacts. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.), we make the following findings: 

(a) This rule will not produce a 

Federal mandate. In general, a Federal 

mandate is a provision in legislation, 

statute, or regulation that would impose 

an enforceable duty upon State, local, or 

Tribal governments, or the private 

sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal 

intergovernmental mandates’’ and 

‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’ 

These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 

658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental 

mandate’’ includes a regulation that 

‘‘would impose an enforceable duty 

upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments’’ with two exceptions. It 

excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal 

assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty 

arising from participation in a voluntary 

Federal program,’’ unless the regulation 

‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal 

program under which $500,000,000 or 

more is provided annually to State, 

local, and Tribal governments under 

entitlement authority,’’ if the provision 

would ‘‘increase the stringency of 

conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps 

upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal 

Government’s responsibility to provide 

funding,’’ and the State, local, or Tribal 

governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust 

accordingly. At the time of enactment, 

these entitlement programs were: 

Medicaid; AFDC work programs; Child 

Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services 

Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation 

State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 

Assistance, and Independent Living; 

Family Support Welfare Services; and 

Child Support Enforcement. ‘‘Federal 

private sector mandate’’ includes a 

regulation that ‘‘would impose an 

enforceable duty upon the private 

sector, except (i) a condition of Federal 

assistance or (ii) a duty arising from 

participation in a voluntary Federal 

program.’’ 

The designation of critical habitat 

does not impose a legally binding duty 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6741 

on non-Federal Government entities or 

private parties. Under the Act, the only 

regulatory effect is that Federal agencies 

must ensure that their actions do not 

destroy or adversely modify critical 

habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal 

funding, assistance, or permits, or that 

otherwise require approval or 

authorization from a Federal agency for 

an action, may be indirectly impacted 

by the designation of critical habitat, the 

legally binding duty to avoid 

destruction or adverse modification of 

critical habitat rests squarely on the 

Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 

extent that non-Federal entities are 

indirectly impacted because they 

receive Federal assistance or participate 

in a voluntary Federal aid program, the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would 

not apply, nor would critical habitat 

shift the costs of the large entitlement 

programs listed above onto State 

governments. 

(b) We do not believe that this rule 

will significantly or uniquely affect 

small governments because it is not 

likely to produce a Federal mandate of 

$100 million or greater in any year, that 

is, it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act. Most lands being 

designated as critical habitat are Federal 

or State properties. In addition, the 

designation of critical habitat imposes 

no obligations on State or local 

governments. Therefore, a Small 

Government Agency Plan is not 

required. 

Takings 

In accordance with E.O. 12630 

(Government Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Private 

Property Rights), we have analyzed the 

potential takings implications of 

designating critical habitat for the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and 

the frosted flatwoods salamander in a 

takings implications assessment. The 

takings implications assessment 

concludes that this designation of 

critical habitat for the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander and the frosted 

flatwoods salamander does not pose 

significant takings implications for 

lands within or affected by the 

designation. 

Federalism 

In accordance with E.O. 13132 

(Federalism), this final rule does not 

have significant Federalism effects. A 

Federalism assessment is not required. 

In keeping with Department of the 

Interior and Department of Commerce 

policy, we requested information from, 

and coordinated development of, this 

final critical habitat designation with 

appropriate State resource agencies in 

Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. 

The designation of critical habitat in 

areas currently occupied by the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and 

the frosted flatwoods salamander 

imposes no additional restrictions to 

those currently in place and, therefore, 

has little incremental impact on State 

and local governments and their 

activities. The designation may have 

some benefit to these governments 

because the areas that contain the 

physical and biological features 

essential to the conservation of the 

species are more clearly defined, and 

the PCEs necessary to support the life 

processes of the species are specifically 

identified. This information does not 

alter where and what federally 

sponsored activities may occur. 

However, it may assist local 

governments in long-range planning 

(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to 

occur). 

Civil Justice Reform 

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil 

Justice Reform), the Office of the 

Solicitor has determined that the rule 

does not unduly burden the judicial 

system and that it meets the 

requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) 

of the Order. We have designated 

critical habitat in accordance with the 

provisions of the Act. This final rule 

uses standard property descriptions and 

identifies physical and biological 

features essential to the conservation of 

the species within the designated areas 

to assist the public in understanding the 

habitat needs of the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander and the frosted 

flatwoods salamander. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information that require 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 

et seq.). This rule will not impose 

recordkeeping or reporting requirements 

on State or local governments, 

individuals, businesses, or 

organizations. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

It is our position that, outside the 

jurisdiction of the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not 

need to prepare environmental analyses 

as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.) in connection with designating 

critical habitat under the Act. We 

published a notice outlining our reasons 

for this determination in the Federal 

Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 

49244). This assertion was upheld by 

the United States Court of Appeals for 

the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), 

cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994, 

Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, 

and the Department of the Interior’s 

manual at 512 DM 2, we readily 

acknowledge our responsibility to 

communicate meaningfully with 

recognized Federal tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 

of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal 

Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to tribes. 

We have determined that there are no 

tribal lands occupied at the time of 

listing that contain the features essential 

for the conservation, and no tribal lands 

that are essential for the conservation, of 

the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

and the frosted flatwoods salamander. 

Therefore, we have no final critical 

habitat for the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander and the frosted flatwoods 

salamander on tribal lands. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211; Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use) on regulations that 

significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 

requires agencies to prepare Statements 

of Energy Effects when undertaking 

certain actions. While this final rule to 

designate critical habitat for the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander and 

frosted flatwoods salamander is a 

significant regulatory action under E.O. 

12866 in that it may raise novel legal 

and policy issues, we do not expect it 

to significantly affect energy supplies, 

distribution, or use. Based on our draft 

EA (Industrial Economics Inc. 2008a, p. 

A–8), none of the nine outcomes that 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6742 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

may constitute ‘‘a significant adverse 

effect’’ exist for this final rule. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action, and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this rulemaking is available upon 

request from the Field Supervisor, Ray 

Aycock, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Author(s) 

The primary author of this document 

is the Staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife 

Service Field Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth 

below: 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Public Law 

99–625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise 

noted. 

■ 2. In § 17.11(h) remove the entry for 

‘‘Salamander, flatwoods’’, and add 

entries for ‘‘Salamander, frosted 

flatwoods’’ and ‘‘Salamander, 

reticulated flatwoods’’ in alphabetical 

order under ‘‘AMPHIBIANS,’’ to the List 

of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife, 

to read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When 

listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

* * * * * * * 

AMPHIBIANS

.

* * * * * * * 

Salamander, frosted 

flatwoods.

Ambystoma 

cingulatum.

U.S.A. (FL, GA, SC) Entire ...................... T 658 17.95(d) NA 

* * * * * * * 

Salamander, reticulated flatwoods.Ambystoma bishopi U.S.A. (FL, GA) ...... Entire ...................... E .................... 17.95(d) NA 

* * * * * * * 

3. In § 17.95, amend paragraph (d) by 

adding entries for ‘‘Frosted flatwoods 

salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum)’’ 

and ‘‘Reticulated flatwoods salamander 

(Ambystoma bishopi)’’ in the same 

alphabetical order that these species 

appear in the table at § 17.11(h), to read 

as follows: 

§ 17.95 Critical habitat—fish and wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(d) Amphibians. 

* * * * * 

Frosted Flatwoods Salamander 

(Ambystoma cingulatum) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Baker, Franklin, Jefferson, Liberty, 

and Wakulla Counties in Florida; and 

Berkeley, Charleston, and Jasper 

Counties in South Carolina on the maps 

below. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

of critical habitat for the frosted 

flatwoods salamander are: 

(i) Breeding habitat. Small (generally 

less than 1 to 10 ac (less than 0.4 to 4.0 

ha)), acidic, depressional standing 

bodies of freshwater (wetlands) that: 

(A) Are seasonally flooded by rainfall 

in late fall or early winter and dry in late 

spring or early summer; 

(B) Are geographically isolated from 

other water bodies; 

(C) Occur within pine flatwoodssavanna communities; 

(D) Are dominated by grasses and 

grass-like species in the ground layer 

and overstories of pond-cypress, 

blackgum, and slash pine; 

(E) Have a relatively open canopy, 

necessary to maintain the herbaceous 

component that serves as cover for 

flatwoods salamander larvae and their 

aquatic invertebrate prey; and 

(F) Typically have a burrowing 

crayfish fauna, but, due to periodic 

drying, the breeding ponds typically 

lack large, predatory fish (for example, 

Lepomis (sunfish), Micropterus (bass), 

Amia calva (bowfin)). 

(ii) Non-breeding habitat. Upland 

pine flatwoods-savanna habitat that is 

open, mesic woodland maintained by 

frequent fires and that: 

(A) Is within 1,500 ft (457 m) of 

adjacent and accessible breeding ponds; 

(B) Contains crayfish burrows or other 

underground habitat that the flatwoods 

salamander depends upon for food, 

shelter, and protection from the 

elements and predation; 

(C) Has an organic hardpan in the soil 

profile, which inhibits subsurface water 

penetration and typically results in 

moist soils with water often at or near 

the surface under normal conditions; 

and 

(D) Often has wiregrasses as the 

dominant grasses in the abundant 

herbaceous ground cover, which 

supports the rich herbivorous 

invertebrates that serve as a food source 

for the frosted flatwoods salamander. 

(iii) Dispersal habitat. Upland habitat 

areas between nonbreeding and 

breeding habitat that allows for 

salamander movement between such 

sites and that is characterized by: 

(A) A mix of vegetation types 

representing a transition between 

wetland and upland vegetation 

(ecotone); 

(B) An open canopy and abundant 

native herbaceous species; 

(C) Moist soils as described in 

paragraph (2)(ii); and 

(D) Subsurface structure, such as that 

provided by deep litter cover or 

burrows, that provides shelter for 

salamanders during seasonal 

movements. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6743 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on the effective date of this 

rule. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were created 

on a base of USGS 7.5′ quadrangles, and 

critical habitat units were then mapped 

using Universal Transverse Mercator 

(UTM) coordinates. 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

for the frosted flatwoods salamander 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6744 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER10FE09.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6745 

(6) Frosted flatwood salamander— 

Baker, Franklin, Jefferson, Liberty, and 

Wakulla Counties, Florida. 

(i) Unit FFS–1, Subunit A—Liberty 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle maps Estiffanulga and 

Woods, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 691617.99, 3350707.71; 693095.71, 

3348233.03; 692983.53, 3348209.57; 

692897.48, 3348210.76; 692828.41, 

3348229.52; 692759.43, 3348248.25; 

692691.40, 3348292.76; 692639.72, 

3348326.57; 690393.30, 3350136.47; 

690313.39, 3350218.63; 690268.29, 

3350291.92; 690230.96, 3350400.29; 

690221.36, 3350485.81; 690241.25, 

3350627.47; 690274.03, 3350707.04; 

690333.43, 3350797.24; 690401.06, 

3350865.47; 690279.29, 3350935.03; 

690182.82, 3351040.66; 690111.95, 

3351227.14; 690119.70, 3351398.31; 

690131.84, 3352855.50; 690169.32, 

3352993.56; 690267.58, 3353133.94; 

690384.46, 3353216.42; 690549.65, 

3353261.95; 690664.14, 3353256.77; 

690773.74, 3353223.27; 690871.58, 

3353163.57; 690968.05, 3353057.95; 

692565.25, 3351422.56; 692602.62, 

3351378.97; 692634.23, 3351331.03; 

692669.80, 3351252.67; 692690.04, 

3351169.02; 693379.09, 3348814.26; 

693399.33, 3348730.61; 693403.55, 

3348644.66; 693391.58, 3348559.43; 

693363.86, 3348477.96; 693321.37, 

3348403.12; 693265.60, 3348337.58; 

693174.08, 3348268.59; 693095.71, 

3348233.03. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS–1, 

Subunit A is provided at paragraph 

(6)(x)(B) of this entry. 

(ii) Unit FFS–1, Subunit B—Liberty 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle map Orange, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 689802.94, 3340960.90; 689428.14, 

3339447.54; 689123.11, 3339393.72; 

688873.13, 3339525.49; 688743.74, 

3339836.26; 688831.13, 3340169.91; 

689917.07, 3342147.02; 690004.49, 

3342326.33; 690240.38, 3342481.91; 

690522.67, 3342469.12; 690726.97, 

3342316.32; 690843.40, 3342033.33; 

690847.40, 3341805.94; 690741.36, 

3341604.76; 689705.63, 3339902.63; 

689617.94, 3339656.89; 689428.14, 

3339447.54. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS–1, 

Subunit B is provided at paragraph 

(6)(x)(B) of this entry. 

(iii) Unit FFS–1, Subunit C—Liberty 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle map Wilma, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 695595.00, 3340429.07; 695320.75, 

3338608.68; 695308.16, 3338582.86; 

695293.97, 3338557.88; 695278.24, 

3338533.84; 695261.04, 3338510.84; 

695242.42, 3338488.97; 695222.47, 

3338468.30; 695201.27, 3338448.93; 

695178.88, 3338430.93; 695155.41, 

3338414.37; 695130.95, 3338399.31; 

695105.59, 3338385.83; 695079.43, 

3338373.95; 695052.58, 3338363.76; 

695025.14, 3338355.26; 694997.23, 

3338348.50; 694968.94, 3338343.51; 

694940.40, 3338340.31; 694911.71, 

3338338.90; 694882.99, 3338339.30; 

694854.35, 3338341.50; 694825.90, 

3338345.50; 694797.76, 3338351.27; 

694770.05, 3338358.80; 694742.85, 

3338368.06; 694709.40, 3338382.20; 

694683.58, 3338394.79; 694658.61, 

3338408.98; 694634.57, 3338424.71; 

694611.57, 3338441.91; 694589.69, 

3338460.52; 694569.03, 3338480.47; 

694549.66, 3338501.69; 694531.66, 

3338524.07; 694515.10, 3338547.54; 

694500.05, 3338572.01; 694486.56, 

3338597.37; 694474.69, 3338623.53; 

694464.49, 3338650.38; 694455.99, 

3338677.82; 694449.24, 3338705.74; 

694444.25, 3338734.03; 694441.05, 

3338762.57; 694439.64, 3338791.26; 

694440.04, 3338819.98; 694442.24, 

3338848.63; 694446.23, 3338877.07; 

694452.01, 3338905.21; 694459.53, 

3338932.93; 694468.79, 3338960.12; 

694479.73, 3338986.68; 695846.37, 

3342195.36; 695866.57, 3342249.11; 

695909.07, 3342323.95; 695944.89, 

3342368.83; 696008.43, 3342426.87; 

696081.72, 3342471.97; 696134.73, 

3342494.04; 696218.37, 3342514.28; 

696304.32, 3342518.50; 696399.96, 

3342505.83; 696481.43, 3342478.10; 

696532.23, 3342451.33; 696601.14, 

3342399.78; 696659.17, 3342336.24; 

696716.14, 3342236.78; 696741.60, 

3342154.57; 696751.20, 3342069.05; 

696748.60, 3342011.68; 696738.84, 

3341955.10; 696711.11, 3341873.63; 

695320.75, 3338608.68. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS–1, 

Subunit C is provided at paragraph 

(6)(x)(B) of this entry. 

(iv) Unit FFS–1, Subunit D—Liberty 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle map Wilma, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 698315.71, 3338507.25; 697480.52, 

3338897.39; 697508.44, 3338904.15; 

699107.25, 3339112.64; 699249.88, 

3339101.68; 699357.17, 3339061.36; 

699491.10, 3338954.46; 699566.06, 

3338832.62; 699600.72, 3338636.16; 

699571.97, 3338496.02; 699501.32, 

3338371.62; 699419.16, 3338291.70; 

699319.85, 3338227.75; 699161.66, 

3338161.88; 697647.47, 3337884.31; 

697505.31, 3337868.36; 697338.62, 

3337908.06; 697240.79, 3337967.76; 

697160.88, 3338049.93; 697093.71, 

3338176.24; 697068.86, 3338317.12; 

697081.23, 3338431.07; 697135.72, 

3338563.34; 697197.51, 3338669.79; 

697283.19, 3338784.36; 697400.08, 

3338866.83; 697480.52, 3338897.39. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS–1, 

Subunit D is provided at paragraph 

(6)(x)(B) of this entry. 

(v) Unit FFS–1, Subunit E—Liberty 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle maps Orange and 

Kennedy Creek, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 686367.53, 3332295.84; 686431.12, 

3334276.72; 686521.73, 3334038.23; 

686486.41, 3333905.93; 686456.16, 

3333792.66; 686384.37, 3333673.40; 

686529.54, 3333545.42; 686684.99, 

3333670.42; 686821.64, 3333712.74; 

686964.68, 3333710.75; 689322.67, 

3333980.79; 689576.20, 3334009.24; 

689736.59, 3333948.97; 689863.53, 

3333833.87; 689945.95, 3333652.21; 

689948.95, 3333480.88; 689888.68, 

3333320.48; 689773.58, 3333193.53; 

688133.75, 3332060.68; 687963.85, 

3331956.15; 687770.73, 3331922.03; 

687750.83, 3331780.36; 687652.31, 

3331606.91; 687435.02, 3331473.21; 

686480.70, 3331191.98; 686369.22, 

3331102.34; 685860.73, 3329667.19; 

685722.17, 3329523.69; 685535.70, 

3329452.84; 685421.11, 3329450.84; 

685283.06, 3329488.34; 685142.70, 

3329586.62; 685038.17, 3329756.51; 

684075.02, 3330678.79; 683908.10, 

3330788.01; 683825.64, 3330904.90; 

683780.13, 3331070.10; 683798.63, 

3331240.45; 683861.33, 3331369.02; 

685068.99, 3333929.17; 685144.99, 

3334113.61; 685267.82, 3334233.07; 

685426.00, 3334298.93; 685697.77, 

3334272.20; 685864.11, 3334411.77; 

686057.99, 3334458.69; 686253.39, 

3334418.58; 686431.12, 3334276.72. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS–1, 

Subunit E is provided at paragraph 

(6)(x)(B) of this entry. 

(vi) Unit FFS–1, Subunit F—Liberty 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle map Kennedy Creek, 

Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 686994.66, 3327715.03; 687031.71, 

3327259.31; 687003.02, 3327257.90; 

686974.30, 3327258.30; 686945.66, 

3327260.51; 686917.22, 3327264.50; 

686889.08, 3327270.28; 686861.36, 

3327277.81; 686834.17, 3327287.06; 

686781.80, 3327310.60; 686756.83, 

3327324.79; 686718.31, 3327349.17; 

686687.92, 3327376.34; 686647.89, 

3327417.50; 686629.89, 3327439.88; 

686598.28, 3327487.82; 686584.79, 

3327513.18; 686562.73, 3327566.19; 

686547.48, 3327621.55; 686539.29, 

3327678.38; 686538.28, 3327735.79; 

686544.48, 3327792.87; 686557.79, 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6746 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

3327848.73; 686577.99, 3327902.48; 

686604.76, 3327953.27; 686627.73, 

3327993.87; 686676.26, 3328042.84; 

686697.47, 3328062.21; 686719.85, 

3328080.21; 686767.79, 3328111.82; 

686819.30, 3328137.17; 686873.59, 

3328155.87; 686929.80, 3328167.62; 

686987.03, 3328172.22; 687072.83, 

3328165.62; 687128.68, 3328152.32; 

687182.43, 3328132.12; 687233.22, 

3328105.34; 687280.26, 3328072.41; 

687342.16, 3328012.63; 687391.77, 

3327942.31; 687417.12, 3327890.79; 

687435.81, 3327836.50; 687447.56, 

3327780.29; 687450.76, 3327751.75; 

687451.76, 3327694.34; 687445.57, 

3327637.25; 687432.26, 3327581.40; 

687423.01, 3327554.21; 687385.28, 

3327476.86; 687352.35, 3327429.82; 

687292.58, 3327367.91; 687222.26, 

3327318.30; 687143.89, 3327282.75; 

687116.45, 3327274.26; 687088.54, 

3327267.50; 687060.25, 3327262.51; 

687031.71, 3327259.31. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS–1, 

Subunit F is provided at paragraph 

(6)(x)(B) of this entry. 

(vii) Unit FFS–1, Subunit G—Liberty 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle maps Kennedy Creek 

and Sumatra, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 692743.43, 3325970.41; 690511.49, 

3328333.04; 690352.62, 3327300.27; 

690398.82, 3327359.05; 690435.78, 

3327418.40; 690476.94, 3327458.44; 

690522.80, 3327492.99; 690572.10, 

3327512.25; 690653.06, 3327552.10; 

690737.82, 3327567.04; 690852.31, 

3327561.85; 690961.91, 3327528.34; 

691036.74, 3327485.83; 691102.27, 

3327430.06; 691139.64, 3327386.47; 

691184.74, 3327313.17; 691206.80, 

3327260.16; 691226.10, 3327181.87; 

691285.53, 3327253.00; 691352.60, 

3327306.93; 691428.57, 3327347.33; 

691510.78, 3327372.78; 691596.30, 

3327382.38; 691653.66, 3327379.78; 

691709.33, 3327370.19; 691748.27, 

3327399.19; 691798.09, 3327427.72; 

691851.10, 3327449.80; 691906.46, 

3327465.04; 691963.28, 3327473.24; 

691991.97, 3327474.64; 692049.33, 

3327472.04; 692105.91, 3327462.27; 

692160.82, 3327445.48; 692197.42, 

3327442.46; 692254.00, 3327432.70; 

692315.34, 3327416.01; 692284.77, 

3327496.45; 692273.03, 3327552.66; 

692268.42, 3327609.90; 692271.03, 

3327667.26; 692288.33, 3327751.56; 

692308.53, 3327805.31; 692351.03, 

3327880.14; 692388.83, 3327927.78; 

692448.61, 3327989.69; 692518.93, 

3328039.30; 692570.45, 3328064.66; 

692624.74, 3328083.35; 692709.48, 

3328098.30; 692766.90, 3328099.31; 

692823.98, 3328093.10; 694135.90, 

3328069.14; 694193.26, 3328066.53; 

694249.84, 3328056.76; 694304.75, 

3328039.98; 694357.13, 3328016.44; 

694406.14, 3327986.52; 694451.01, 

3327950.70; 694491.04, 3327909.54; 

694525.60, 3327863.68; 694554.14, 

3327813.85; 694576.20, 3327760.84; 

694591.45, 3327705.48; 694596.44, 

3327677.19; 694601.05, 3327619.96; 

694598.45, 3327562.59; 694588.68, 

3327506.01; 694571.89, 3327451.10; 

694548.36, 3327398.72; 694518.44, 

3327349.71; 693770.98, 3326221.08; 

693868.81, 3326161.37; 693948.72, 

3326079.20; 694005.68, 3325979.75; 

694036.11, 3325869.25; 694038.12, 

3325754.65; 695152.74, 3325675.90; 

695209.97, 3325680.51; 695267.33, 

3325677.91; 695323.91, 3325668.13; 

695378.82, 3325651.35; 695431.20, 

3325627.81; 695480.21, 3325597.89; 

695525.08, 3325562.07; 695565.11, 

3325520.90; 695581.45, 3325500.59; 

695608.30, 3325493.29; 695629.02, 

3325486.24; 695635.41, 3325556.71; 

695657.97, 3325639.76; 695695.70, 

3325717.11; 695728.63, 3325764.15; 

695767.20, 3325806.69; 695810.79, 

3325844.06; 695864.85, 3325870.66; 

695911.78, 3325893.76; 695964.54, 

3325919.72; 696020.74, 3325931.47; 

696077.98, 3325936.07; 696135.33, 

3325933.47; 696219.63, 3325916.16; 

696273.38, 3325895.96; 696324.17, 

3325869.18; 696371.21, 3325836.25; 

696413.74, 3325797.68; 696467.67, 

3325730.61; 697336.67, 3324321.07; 

697362.02, 3324269.54; 697380.72, 

3324215.25; 697392.46, 3324159.04; 

697397.07, 3324101.80; 697394.46, 

3324044.44; 697384.69, 3323987.86; 

697367.90, 3323932.94; 697344.37, 

3323880.57; 697314.45, 3323831.55; 

697258.68, 3323766.01; 697215.08, 

3323728.64; 697167.14, 3323697.03; 

697115.63, 3323671.68; 697061.33, 

3323652.99; 697005.13, 3323641.24; 

696947.90, 3323636.64; 696890.54, 

3323639.24; 696806.24, 3323656.54; 

696752.49, 3323676.75; 696677.66, 

3323719.26; 695425.27, 3324601.45; 

694686.48, 3324259.64; 694636.66, 

3324231.10; 694583.65, 3324209.03; 

694528.29, 3324193.78; 694471.46, 

3324185.59; 694414.05, 3324184.59; 

694356.97, 3324190.79; 694304.17, 

3324203.26; 694297.65, 3324123.23; 

694284.34, 3324067.37; 694264.14, 

3324013.62; 694237.37, 3323962.82; 

694185.82, 3323893.91; 694144.65, 

3323853.88; 694084.93, 3323810.79; 

694067.06, 3323750.57; 694043.52, 

3323698.19; 694010.56, 3323625.86; 

693968.05, 3323551.04; 693932.23, 

3323506.16; 693868.68, 3323448.13; 

693820.75, 3323416.52; 693769.23, 

3323391.17; 693714.94, 3323372.47; 

693658.74, 3323360.73; 693601.51, 

3323356.12; 693544.15, 3323358.72; 

693487.56, 3323368.50; 693432.65, 

3323385.28; 693380.29, 3323408.82; 

693331.27, 3323438.74; 693286.40, 

3323474.56; 693246.37, 3323515.72; 

693224.54, 3323543.55; 693210.13, 

3323497.41; 693186.60, 3323445.03; 

693156.69, 3323396.02; 693120.86, 

3323351.14; 693079.70, 3323311.11; 

693033.84, 3323276.55; 692984.02, 

3323248.02; 692931.01, 3323225.95; 

692875.65, 3323210.70; 692818.82, 

3323202.51; 692761.42, 3323201.50; 

692704.33, 3323207.71; 692648.47, 

3323221.01; 692608.55, 3323235.51; 

692570.41, 3323187.10; 692529.25, 

3323147.06; 692458.93, 3323097.45; 

692407.41, 3323072.10; 692325.20, 

3323046.65; 692268.37, 3323038.46; 

692210.96, 3323037.46; 692125.74, 

3323049.44; 692070.83, 3323066.22; 

692011.40, 3323093.76; 691923.51, 

3323089.22; 691866.43, 3323095.42; 

691810.57, 3323108.73; 691731.01, 

3323141.52; 691682.00, 3323171.44; 

691637.13, 3323207.26; 691597.10, 

3323248.43; 691562.54, 3323294.28; 

691534.00, 3323344.11; 691503.44, 

3323424.56; 691491.70, 3323480.77; 

691487.09, 3323538.00; 691489.70, 

3323595.37; 691507.00, 3323679.67; 

691539.79, 3323759.24; 692318.77, 

3325166.83; 692288.21, 3325247.29; 

692273.27, 3325332.04; 692269.31, 

3326096.13; 692212.73, 3326105.90; 

692165.53, 3326127.24; 692126.83, 

3326144.74; 692092.01, 3326160.48; 

692049.42, 3326179.73; 692011.56, 

3326211.96; 691971.53, 3326253.13; 

691936.98, 3326298.98; 691908.44, 

3326348.81; 691872.05, 3326393.76; 

691837.49, 3326439.61; 691816.22, 

3326475.77; 691767.03, 3326455.43; 

691711.68, 3326440.18; 691654.84, 

3326431.99; 691626.16, 3326430.59; 

691568.79, 3326433.19; 691512.21, 

3326442.96; 691457.31, 3326459.75; 

691390.25, 3326491.62; 691353.93, 

3326429.48; 691298.16, 3326363.94; 

691231.09, 3326310.01; 691155.11, 

3326269.60; 691072.90, 3326244.15; 

689760.49, 3325296.16; 689712.55, 

3325264.55; 689661.04, 3325239.20; 

689606.75, 3325220.50; 689550.54, 

3325208.76; 689493.31, 3325204.15; 

689407.51, 3325210.75; 689324.46, 

3325233.31; 689247.12, 3325271.04; 

689157.55, 3325342.54; 689103.62, 

3325409.61; 689063.22, 3325485.59; 

689044.52, 3325539.88; 689032.78, 

3325596.09; 689028.17, 3325653.33; 

689034.77, 3325739.13; 689233.31, 

3327105.96; 689637.00, 3328600.37; 

689861.46, 3329635.49; 689894.25, 

3329715.06; 689924.16, 3329764.07; 

689959.98, 3329808.95; 690001.15, 

3329848.98; 690047.00, 3329883.54; 

690096.82, 3329912.08; 690149.83, 

3329934.15; 690205.19, 3329949.40; 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6747 

690262.02, 3329957.59; 690319.43, 

3329958.59; 690404.65, 3329946.62; 

690457.17, 3329926.88; 690511.93, 

3329906.30; 690560.94, 3329876.39; 

690626.48, 3329820.61; 690663.84, 

3329777.02; 690695.45, 3329729.08; 

690720.81, 3329677.56; 690739.50, 

3329623.27; 690751.25, 3329567.06; 

690755.85, 3329509.83; 690749.26, 

3329424.02; 690735.95, 3329368.16; 

690529.29, 3328448.39; 690524.80, 

3328388.90; 690511.49, 3328333.04. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS–1, 

Subunit G is provided at paragraph 

(6)(x)(B) of this entry. 

(viii) Unit FFS–1, Subunit H—Liberty 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle maps Sumatra and 

Owens Bridge, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 705290.30, 3325041.96; 706646.10, 

3324321.38; 706503.21, 3324314.39; 

704109.35, 3324557.65; 703953.05, 

3324627.90; 703833.59, 3324750.75; 

703782.98, 3324853.59; 703758.14, 

3324994.48; 703787.30, 3325163.35; 

703857.96, 3325287.74; 703940.13, 

3325367.66; 704025.87, 3325418.40; 

704016.83, 3325569.76; 704034.13, 

3325654.07; 704096.85, 3325782.66; 

704196.22, 3325885.57; 704322.53, 

3325952.74; 704463.41, 3325977.58; 

704605.08, 3325957.68; 706601.96, 

3325223.59; 706713.46, 3325197.03; 

706859.72, 3325107.75; 706949.37, 

3324996.25; 707005.16, 3324834.22; 

707007.16, 3324719.61; 706989.86, 

3324635.31; 706942.88, 3324530.75; 

706871.37, 3324441.17; 706796.16, 

3324398.25; 706728.31, 3324346.84; 

706646.10, 3324321.38. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS–1, 

Subunit H is provided at paragraph 

(6)(x)(B) of this entry. 

(ix) Unit FFS–1, Subunit I—Liberty 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle map Owens Bridge, 

Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 712262.72, 3326181.63; 712356.33, 

3325733.94; 712270.80, 3325724.34; 

712213.44, 3325726.95; 712129.13, 

3325744.25; 712101.94, 3325753.51; 

712024.58, 3325791.24; 711977.54, 

3325824.17; 711955.67, 3325842.79; 

711915.63, 3325883.96; 711881.07, 

3325929.82; 711852.53, 3325979.66; 

711830.47, 3326032.67; 711815.21, 

3326088.04; 711807.02, 3326144.87; 

711805.62, 3326173.57; 711808.22, 

3326230.94; 711817.99, 3326287.52; 

711834.78, 3326342.44; 711858.32, 

3326394.82; 711888.24, 3326443.84; 

711905.44, 3326466.84; 711944.01, 

3326509.39; 711965.23, 3326528.76; 

711987.61, 3326546.76; 712011.09, 

3326563.32; 712060.92, 3326591.86; 

712087.08, 3326603.73; 712113.93, 

3326613.93; 712169.29, 3326629.18; 

712226.13, 3326637.37; 712254.82, 

3326638.78; 712312.18, 3326636.17; 

712368.77, 3326626.40; 712423.68, 

3326609.61; 712476.06, 3326586.07; 

712525.08, 3326556.15; 712590.62, 

3326500.37; 712644.55, 3326433.30; 

712684.96, 3326357.30; 712703.65, 

3326303.01; 712715.40, 3326246.79; 

712720.00, 3326189.55; 712717.40, 

3326132.18; 712707.63, 3326075.60; 

712700.10, 3326047.87; 712674.07, 

3325977.60; 712653.11, 3325943.32; 

712601.56, 3325874.40; 712560.39, 

3325834.36; 712538.01, 3325816.36; 

712514.54, 3325799.80; 712464.71, 

3325771.26; 712411.69, 3325749.19; 

712356.33, 3325733.94. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS–1, 

Subunit I is provided at paragraph 

(6)(x)(B) of this entry. 

(x) Unit FFS–1, Subunit J—Franklin 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle map Fort Gadsen, 

Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 696448.29, 3312586.05; 697417.53, 

3311729.38; 697304.09, 3311713.04; 

697218.29, 3311719.64; 697135.24, 

3311742.21; 697057.90, 3311779.94; 

695449.24, 3312550.89; 695396.87, 

3312574.43; 695324.87, 3312621.56; 

695282.33, 3312660.13; 695228.41, 

3312727.20; 695188.01, 3312803.20; 

695162.57, 3312885.41; 695152.98, 

3312970.93; 695159.58, 3313056.74; 

695182.15, 3313139.79; 695219.88, 

3313217.14; 695271.43, 3313286.05; 

695335.05, 3313350.76; 695405.38, 

3313400.37; 695456.90, 3313425.72; 

695511.18, 3313444.41; 695595.94, 

3313459.35; 695710.43, 3313454.14; 

695820.03, 3313420.63; 697427.52, 

3312615.68; 697509.40, 3312574.69; 

697581.41, 3312527.56; 697643.31, 

3312467.77; 697706.40, 3312372.08; 

697743.71, 3312263.71; 697752.89, 

3312149.46; 697733.38, 3312036.51; 

697686.39, 3311931.97; 697653.45, 

3311884.93; 697593.67, 3311823.03; 

697523.35, 3311773.42; 697417.53, 

3311729.38. 

(B) Note: Map of Unit FFS–1 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6748 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER10FE09.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6749 

(xi) Unit FFS–3, Subunit A—Wakulla 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle maps St. Marks and St. 

Marks NE, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 775789.22, 3340665.92; 778066.61, 

3340484.87; 777670.88, 3338778.31; 

777533.15, 3338184.41; 777525.56, 

3338156.70; 777516.42, 3338129.40; 

777505.42, 3338102.83; 777492.86, 

3338076.99; 777478.74, 3338052.00; 

777471.13, 3338040.27; 777482.70, 

3338036.35; 777509.30, 3338025.48; 

777535.17, 3338012.93; 777560.12, 

3337998.80; 777584.24, 3337982.99; 

777607.24, 3337965.82; 777629.12, 

3337947.29; 777649.88, 3337927.29; 

777669.21, 3337906.14; 777687.24, 

3337883.74; 777703.84, 3337860.31; 

777714.90, 3337842.39; 777724.48, 

3337852.29; 777745.69, 3337871.69; 

777768.09, 3337889.78; 777791.49, 

3337906.35; 777815.99, 3337921.39; 

777841.30, 3337934.91; 777867.51, 

3337946.89; 777894.35, 3337957.11; 

777921.81, 3337965.57; 777949.70, 

3337972.38; 777978.02, 3337977.42; 

777990.29, 3337977.52; 778007.58, 

3337977.78; 778035.40, 3337978.19; 

778064.31, 3337978.62; 778092.26, 

3337979.03; 778121.08, 3337975.61; 

778149.29, 3337969.88; 778177.06, 

3337962.38; 778204.20, 3337953.08; 

778230.80, 3337942.21; 778256.67, 

3337929.67; 778281.62, 3337915.43; 

778305.74, 3337899.73; 778328.75, 

3337882.56; 778350.72, 3337863.93; 

778371.38, 3337844.03; 778390.82, 

3337822.89; 778408.84, 3337800.49; 

778425.45, 3337776.95; 778440.53, 

3337752.59; 778454.00, 3337727.19; 

778465.95, 3337700.97; 778476.17, 

3337674.16; 778484.68, 3337646.75; 

778491.46, 3337618.85; 778496.52, 

3337590.46; 778499.75, 3337561.92; 

778501.16, 3337533.22; 778500.82, 

3337504.47; 778498.66, 3337475.90; 

778494.65, 3337447.40; 778488.90, 

3337419.29; 778481.41, 3337391.48; 

778472.17, 3337364.28; 778461.27, 

3337337.71; 778448.71, 3337311.87; 

778434.49, 3337286.88; 778418.81, 

3337262.74; 778401.64, 3337239.78; 

778383.01, 3337217.89; 778363.09, 

3337197.19; 778341.88, 3337177.80; 

778319.48, 3337159.70; 778296.08, 

3337143.13; 778271.58, 3337128.08; 

778246.27, 3337114.46; 778220.05, 

3337102.59; 778193.21, 3337092.37; 

778165.75, 3337083.80; 778137.85, 

3337077.10; 778109.53, 3337072.05; 

778080.97, 3337068.78; 778052.27, 

3337067.39; 778023.61, 3337067.77; 

777994.91, 3337069.93; 777966.46, 

3337073.87; 777938.25, 3337079.59; 

777910.58, 3337087.10; 777883.34, 

3337096.29; 777856.73, 3337107.26; 

777830.96, 3337119.82; 777805.91, 

3337133.94; 777781.88, 3337149.75; 

777758.79, 3337166.92; 777736.91, 

3337185.45; 777716.25, 3337205.45; 

777696.81, 3337226.60; 777678.79, 

3337249.00; 777662.19, 3337272.43; 

777651.12, 3337290.35; 777641.54, 

3337280.46; 777620.33, 3337261.06; 

777598.03, 3337242.96; 777574.53, 

3337226.39; 777550.03, 3337211.35; 

777524.72, 3337197.84; 777498.59, 

3337185.86; 777471.75, 3337175.64; 

777444.29, 3337167.07; 777416.30, 

3337160.37; 777410.25, 3337159.33; 

777411.85, 3337145.51; 777413.25, 

3337116.80; 777412.92, 3337088.06; 

777410.75, 3337059.38; 777406.74, 

3337030.88; 777400.99, 3337002.77; 

777393.49, 3336975.07; 777384.25, 

3336947.76; 777373.35, 3336921.19; 

777360.79, 3336895.35; 777346.57, 

3336870.36; 777330.87, 3336846.33; 

777313.71, 3336823.27; 777295.07, 

3336801.38; 777275.15, 3336780.69; 

777253.94, 3336761.29; 777231.63, 

3336743.20; 777208.13, 3336726.63; 

777183.73, 3336711.59; 777158.32, 

3336698.08; 777132.19, 3336686.10; 

777105.35, 3336675.88; 777077.88, 

3336667.42; 777049.99, 3336660.62; 

777021.67, 3336655.58; 776993.11, 

3336652.30; 776964.40, 3336650.92; 

776935.65, 3336651.30; 776907.05, 

3336653.46; 776878.50, 3336657.40; 

776850.38, 3336663.13; 776822.61, 

3336670.64; 776795.47, 3336679.83; 

776768.87, 3336690.81; 776742.99, 

3336703.36; 776718.05, 3336717.49; 

776693.93, 3336733.19; 776670.93, 

3336750.37; 776648.95, 3336769.01; 

776628.29, 3336788.90; 776608.85, 

3336810.16; 776590.83, 3336832.56; 

776574.23, 3336856.00; 776570.11, 

3336862.66; 776553.01, 3336856.13; 

776525.55, 3336847.67; 776497.65, 

3336840.87; 776469.33, 3336835.83; 

776440.77, 3336832.56; 776412.07, 

3336831.17; 776383.32, 3336831.56; 

776354.72, 3336833.72; 776326.26, 

3336837.66; 776298.05, 3336843.39; 

776270.38, 3336850.90; 776243.14, 

3336860.09; 776216.54, 3336871.08; 

776190.67, 3336883.63; 776165.72, 

3336897.76; 776141.60, 3336913.46; 

776118.60, 3336930.63; 776096.72, 

3336949.28; 776075.97, 3336969.17; 

776056.63, 3336990.43; 776038.52, 

3337012.83; 776021.92, 3337036.27; 

776006.84, 3337060.74; 775993.38, 

3337086.03; 775981.43, 3337112.25; 

775971.21, 3337139.07; 775962.71, 

3337166.48; 775955.93, 3337194.49; 

775950.88, 3337222.77; 775947.66, 

3337251.31; 775946.17, 3337280.01; 

775946.60, 3337308.76; 775948.78, 

3337337.32; 775952.69, 3337365.83; 

775958.44, 3337394.04; 775965.94, 

3337421.74; 775975.19, 3337448.94; 

775986.10, 3337475.51; 775998.66, 

3337501.34; 776012.79, 3337526.33; 

776028.58, 3337550.47; 776045.74, 

3337573.53; 776064.28, 3337595.41; 

776084.30, 3337616.11; 776105.42, 

3337635.50; 776127.82, 3337653.48; 

776151.32, 3337670.16; 776175.72, 

3337685.20; 776201.13, 3337698.71; 

776227.26, 3337710.57; 776244.06, 

3337717.09; 776242.57, 3337718.94; 

776232.10, 3337713.35; 776205.89, 

3337701.38; 776179.04, 3337691.16; 

776151.58, 3337682.70; 776123.69, 

3337675.90; 776095.37, 3337670.86; 

776066.81, 3337667.59; 776038.11, 

3337666.20; 776009.36, 3337666.59; 

775980.76, 3337668.76; 775952.31, 

3337672.70; 775924.10, 3337678.43; 

775896.43, 3337685.94; 775869.20, 

3337695.13; 775842.60, 3337706.12; 

775816.73, 3337718.67; 775791.78, 

3337732.80; 775767.66, 3337748.50; 

775744.67, 3337765.68; 775722.70, 

3337784.32; 775702.04, 3337804.22; 

775682.61, 3337825.48; 775664.59, 

3337847.77; 775648.00, 3337871.32; 

775632.92, 3337895.68; 775619.36, 

3337921.08; 775607.52, 3337947.30; 

775597.30, 3337974.11; 775588.70, 

3338001.52; 775581.93, 3338029.42; 

775576.97, 3338057.81; 775573.65, 

3338086.36; 775572.26, 3338115.06; 

775572.59, 3338143.80; 775574.77, 

3338172.37; 775578.78, 3338200.87; 

775584.54, 3338228.98; 775592.03, 

3338256.79; 775601.19, 3338283.98; 

775612.19, 3338310.55; 775624.75, 

3338336.39; 775638.88, 3338361.37; 

775654.57, 3338385.51; 775671.73, 

3338408.46; 775690.37, 3338430.46; 

775710.29, 3338451.15; 775731.50, 

3338470.54; 775753.90, 3338488.52; 

775777.31, 3338505.09; 775801.80, 

3338520.24; 775827.21, 3338533.75; 

775853.33, 3338545.61; 775880.17, 

3338555.94; 775907.63, 3338564.39; 

775935.52, 3338571.20; 775963.84, 

3338576.23; 775992.39, 3338579.50; 

776021.09, 3338580.89; 776049.84, 

3338580.50; 776078.53, 3338578.34; 

776106.98, 3338574.40; 776135.09, 

3338568.67; 776162.85, 3338561.16; 

776190.08, 3338551.97; 776216.69, 

3338540.99; 776242.46, 3338528.43; 

776267.50, 3338514.30; 776291.52, 

3338498.60; 776314.61, 3338481.43; 

776336.49, 3338462.78; 776357.24, 

3338442.89; 776376.58, 3338421.63; 

776392.70, 3338401.62; 776403.17, 

3338407.21; 776429.29, 3338419.08; 

776456.13, 3338429.40; 776483.59, 

3338437.86; 776511.57, 3338444.67; 

776539.80, 3338449.71; 776568.35, 

3338452.98; 776597.05, 3338454.37; 

776625.80, 3338453.98; 776654.49, 

3338451.82; 776660.01, 3338451.07; 

776670.54, 3338476.85; 776827.26, 

3339164.36; 777053.70, 3340157.85; 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6750 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

775510.45, 3340235.09; 775168.35, 

3339961.10; 775144.54, 3339940.36; 

775091.43, 3339897.57; 774949.30, 

3339783.09; 774965.89, 3339759.65; 

774980.97, 3339735.17; 774994.43, 

3339709.77; 775006.36, 3339683.66; 

775016.58, 3339656.74; 775025.08, 

3339629.33; 775031.95, 3339601.43; 

775036.90, 3339573.15; 775039.60, 

3339549.86; 775040.22, 3339544.61; 

775041.61, 3339515.91; 775041.27, 

3339487.16; 775041.13, 3339484.94; 

775057.54, 3339480.47; 775084.67, 

3339471.27; 775111.27, 3339460.29; 

775137.13, 3339447.74; 775162.17, 

3339433.61; 775186.18, 3339417.90; 

775209.27, 3339400.73; 775231.15, 

3339382.08; 775251.80, 3339362.18; 

775271.23, 3339340.93; 775289.24, 

3339318.63; 775305.83, 3339295.08; 

775321.00, 3339270.72; 775334.47, 

3339245.32; 775346.40, 3339219.21; 

775356.62, 3339192.29; 775365.12, 

3339164.87; 775371.89, 3339136.97; 

775376.94, 3339108.70; 775380.17, 

3339080.04; 775381.66, 3339051.34; 

775381.32, 3339022.71; 775379.14, 

3338994.03; 775375.13, 3338965.53; 

775369.38, 3338937.42; 775361.88, 

3338909.61; 775352.63, 3338882.42; 

775341.73, 3338855.85; 775329.16, 

3338830.02; 775315.04, 3338805.03; 

775299.35, 3338780.89; 775282.09, 

3338757.94; 775263.54, 3338735.95; 

775243.62, 3338715.26; 775222.41, 

3338695.86; 775200.01, 3338677.88; 

775176.51, 3338661.32; 775152.11, 

3338646.17; 775126.70, 3338632.67; 

775100.58, 3338620.80; 775073.74, 

3338610.48; 775046.28, 3338602.03; 

775018.39, 3338595.22; 774990.07, 

3338590.19; 774961.52, 3338586.92; 

774932.82, 3338585.54; 774904.08, 

3338585.82; 774875.38, 3338588.09; 

774846.93, 3338592.04; 774818.83, 

3338597.77; 774791.06, 3338605.29; 

774763.83, 3338614.48; 774737.24, 

3338625.35; 774711.37, 3338638.02; 

774686.43, 3338652.15; 774662.31, 

3338667.86; 774639.71, 3338684.71; 

774638.37, 3338684.57; 774609.67, 

3338683.18; 774582.28, 3338683.50; 

774581.67, 3338680.60; 774574.17, 

3338652.89; 774564.92, 3338625.59; 

774554.01, 3338599.02; 774541.45, 

3338573.19; 774527.32, 3338548.21; 

774511.63, 3338524.18; 774494.37, 

3338501.12; 774475.82, 3338479.24; 

774455.89, 3338458.55; 774434.69, 

3338439.05; 774412.28, 3338421.07; 

774388.88, 3338404.51; 774364.38, 

3338389.36; 774338.97, 3338375.86; 

774312.85, 3338364.00; 774286.01, 

3338353.68; 774258.55, 3338345.22; 

774230.66, 3338338.43; 774202.34, 

3338333.39; 774173.78, 3338330.13; 

774145.08, 3338328.74; 774116.34, 

3338329.03; 774087.74, 3338331.20; 

774059.19, 3338335.25; 774031.09, 

3338340.99; 774003.32, 3338348.51; 

773976.09, 3338357.70; 773949.59, 

3338368.58; 773923.73, 3338381.14; 

773898.69, 3338395.38; 773874.67, 

3338411.09; 773851.58, 3338428.26; 

773829.72, 3338446.80; 773808.97, 

3338466.81; 773789.64, 3338487.96; 

773771.53, 3338510.37; 773754.94, 

3338533.81; 773739.86, 3338558.28; 

773726.41, 3338583.58; 773714.47, 

3338609.79; 773704.26, 3338636.61; 

773695.67, 3338664.02; 773688.90, 

3338692.03; 773683.85, 3338720.31; 

773680.63, 3338748.86; 773679.24, 

3338777.56; 773679.59, 3338806.30; 

773681.77, 3338834.98; 773685.69, 

3338863.37; 773691.44, 3338891.58; 

773698.95, 3338919.28; 773708.20, 

3338946.47; 773719.11, 3338973.04; 

773731.67, 3338998.98; 773745.80, 

3339023.97; 773761.50, 3339047.99; 

773778.76, 3339071.05; 773797.31, 

3339092.93; 773817.23, 3339113.62; 

773838.44, 3339133.01; 773860.84, 

3339151.10; 773884.34, 3339167.66; 

773908.74, 3339182.80; 773934.15, 

3339196.31; 773960.27, 3339208.16; 

773987.11, 3339218.38; 774014.57, 

3339226.94; 774042.46, 3339233.74; 

774070.77, 3339238.77; 774099.33, 

3339242.04; 774128.03, 3339243.42; 

774155.42, 3339242.99; 774156.02, 

3339246.00; 774163.52, 3339273.71; 

774172.77, 3339301.01; 774174.22, 

3339304.59; 774174.02, 3339304.92; 

774162.19, 3339331.03; 774151.88, 

3339357.85; 774143.38, 3339385.37; 

774136.61, 3339413.27; 774131.56, 

3339441.55; 774128.34, 3339470.09; 

774126.85, 3339498.79; 774127.29, 

3339527.54; 774129.37, 3339556.21; 

774133.39, 3339584.61; 774139.14, 

3339612.82; 774146.65, 3339640.52; 

774150.33, 3339651.49; 774130.27, 

3339662.97; 774106.16, 3339678.68; 

774083.17, 3339695.85; 774061.21, 

3339714.39; 774040.56, 3339734.40; 

774021.14, 3339755.55; 774003.13, 

3339777.95; 773986.54, 3339801.39; 

773971.46, 3339825.87; 773957.91, 

3339851.27; 773945.98, 3339877.38; 

773935.76, 3339904.19; 773927.27, 

3339931.72; 773926.18, 3339936.26; 

773926.14, 3339936.25; 773920.50, 

3339959.62; 773915.45, 3339987.90; 

773912.23, 3340016.44; 773910.75, 

3340045.14; 773910.93, 3340060.90; 

773909.63, 3340058.87; 773892.47, 

3340035.81; 773873.92, 3340013.93; 

773853.91, 3339993.24; 773832.70, 

3339973.85; 773810.39, 3339955.76; 

773786.90, 3339939.20; 773777.78, 

3339933.61; 773777.91, 3339933.62; 

773762.40, 3339924.06; 773737.09, 

3339910.55; 773710.97, 3339898.70; 

773684.04, 3339888.48; 773656.68, 

3339879.92; 773628.70, 3339873.12; 

773600.38, 3339868.09; 773571.83, 

3339864.83; 773543.13, 3339863.45; 

773514.39, 3339863.73; 773485.80, 

3339865.90; 773476.45, 3339867.03; 

773476.45, 3339867.18; 773457.35, 

3339869.96; 773429.15, 3339875.70; 

773401.39, 3339883.21; 773374.17, 

3339892.41; 773347.58, 3339903.29; 

773321.81, 3339915.85; 773296.78, 

3339930.09; 773272.67, 3339945.80; 

773249.68, 3339962.98; 773227.82, 

3339981.52; 773207.07, 3340001.53; 

773187.65, 3340022.68; 773169.64, 

3340045.08; 773153.05, 3340068.52; 

773137.98, 3340093.00; 773124.43, 

3340118.29; 773112.50, 3340144.51; 

773102.29, 3340171.33; 773093.80, 

3340198.74; 773086.93, 3340226.64; 

773081.99, 3340255.03; 773078.67, 

3340283.58; 773077.28, 3340312.28; 

773077.63, 3340341.02; 773079.81, 

3340369.59; 773083.82, 3340398.09; 

773089.48, 3340426.30; 773096.99, 

3340454.00; 773106.24, 3340481.19; 

773117.15, 3340507.76; 773129.71, 

3340533.59; 773143.94, 3340558.68; 

773159.63, 3340582.71; 773176.80, 

3340605.77; 773195.44, 3340627.64; 

773215.36, 3340648.33; 773236.57, 

3340667.72; 773240.54, 3340670.93; 

774190.69, 3341600.54; 774207.73, 

3341623.69; 774226.19, 3341645.71; 

774245.99, 3341666.54; 774267.06, 

3341686.08; 774289.32, 3341704.26; 

774312.67, 3341721.00; 774337.03, 

3341736.25; 774362.30, 3341749.94; 

774388.38, 3341762.01; 774415.16, 

3341772.42; 774442.55, 3341781.13; 

774470.43, 3341788.10; 774498.69, 

3341793.31; 774527.22, 3341796.73; 

774555.91, 3341798.36; 774584.65, 

3341798.18; 774613.32, 3341796.20; 

774641.80, 3341792.42; 774670.00, 

3341786.86; 774697.79, 3341779.54; 

774725.06, 3341770.48; 774751.71, 

3341759.74; 774777.64, 3341747.34; 

774802.74, 3341733.34; 774826.90, 

3341717.79; 774850.05, 3341700.75; 

774872.07, 3341682.30; 774892.90, 

3341662.49; 774912.44, 3341641.42; 

775378.58, 3341173.26; 775544.57, 

3341006.80; 777609.30, 3341044.76; 

777638.03, 3341044.58; 777666.70, 

3341042.60; 777680.70, 3341040.35; 

777695.19, 3341038.82; 777723.39, 

3341033.26; 777751.18, 3341025.93; 

777778.45, 3341016.88; 777805.10, 

3341006.14; 777831.03, 3340993.74; 

777856.13, 3340979.74; 777880.29, 

3340964.19; 777903.44, 3340947.15; 

777925.47, 3340928.69; 777946.29, 

3340908.89; 777965.83, 3340887.82; 

777984.01, 3340865.56; 778000.76, 

3340842.21; 778016.00, 3340817.85; 

778029.69, 3340792.58; 778041.76, 

3340766.50; 778052.18, 3340739.71; 

778060.89, 3340712.33; 778067.86, 

3340684.45; 778073.07, 3340656.19; 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6751 

778076.49, 3340627.65; 778078.11, 

3340598.96; 778077.93, 3340570.22; 

778075.95, 3340541.55; 778072.17, 

3340513.07; 778066.61, 3340484.87. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS–3, 

Subunit A is provided at paragraph 

(6)(xiii)(B) of this entry. 

(xii) Unit FFS–3, Subunit B—Wakulla 

and Jefferson Counties, Florida. From 

USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map St. 

Marks NE, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 781813.02, 3338564.97; 780854.75, 

3336748.56; 780826.19, 3336745.28; 

780797.49, 3336743.88; 780768.74, 

3336744.25; 780751.83, 3336745.48; 

780740.73, 3336730.55; 780722.10, 

3336708.66; 780702.18, 3336687.96; 

780680.97, 3336668.56; 780658.57, 

3336650.57; 780635.18, 3336633.88; 

780610.68, 3336618.83; 780585.37, 

3336605.31; 780559.15, 3336593.44; 

780532.31, 3336583.21; 780504.85, 

3336574.63; 780476.95, 3336567.82; 

780448.63, 3336562.88; 780420.07, 

3336559.60; 780391.36, 3336558.20; 

780362.71, 3336558.58; 780334.01, 

3336560.73; 780305.55, 3336564.66; 

780277.43, 3336570.38; 780249.66, 

3336577.88; 780222.42, 3336587.17; 

780195.81, 3336598.03; 780170.02, 

3336610.69; 780144.97, 3336624.81; 

780120.94, 3336640.51; 780097.94, 

3336657.67; 780075.95, 3336676.31; 

780055.29, 3336696.20; 780035.94, 

3336717.45; 780017.82, 3336739.85; 

780001.31, 3336763.28; 779986.22, 

3336787.75; 779972.64, 3336813.14; 

779960.79, 3336839.25; 779950.56, 

3336866.06; 779941.95, 3336893.58; 

779935.16, 3336921.48; 779930.20, 

3336949.76; 779926.96, 3336978.30; 

779925.49, 3337005.78; 779913.72, 

3337013.47; 779890.72, 3337030.63; 

779868.74, 3337049.27; 779848.07, 

3337069.16; 779828.63, 3337090.41; 

779810.60, 3337112.81; 779794.09, 

3337136.24; 779779.00, 3337160.71; 

779765.43, 3337186.11; 779753.58, 

3337212.21; 779743.35, 3337239.02; 

779734.74, 3337266.54; 779727.96, 

3337294.44; 779722.99, 3337322.72; 

779719.76, 3337351.26; 779718.26, 

3337379.96; 779718.68, 3337408.71; 

779720.84, 3337437.39; 779724.75, 

3337465.89; 779730.49, 3337494.00; 

779738.08, 3337521.71; 779747.22, 

3337548.90; 779758.21, 3337575.59; 

779770.77, 3337601.43; 779784.89, 

3337626.42; 779800.67, 3337650.46; 

779817.83, 3337673.53; 779836.46, 

3337695.42; 779856.38, 3337716.12; 

779877.58, 3337735.52; 779899.88, 

3337753.51; 779923.38, 3337770.08; 

779947.87, 3337785.24; 779973.18, 

3337798.76; 779999.40, 3337810.63; 

780026.23, 3337820.86; 780046.61, 

3337827.26; 780031.54, 3337835.75; 

780007.52, 3337851.45; 779984.42, 

3337868.61; 779962.53, 3337887.25; 

779941.87, 3337907.14; 779922.43, 

3337928.39; 779904.40, 3337950.79; 

779887.80, 3337974.22; 779872.71, 

3337998.69; 779859.23, 3338024.09; 

779859.02, 3338024.55; 779847.29, 

3338050.19; 779837.06, 3338077.00; 

779828.54, 3338104.52; 779821.76, 

3338132.42; 779816.70, 3338160.70; 

779813.46, 3338189.24; 779812.06, 

3338217.94; 779812.38, 3338246.69; 

779814.55, 3338275.37; 779818.54, 

3338303.87; 779824.29, 3338331.98; 

779831.78, 3338359.69; 779841.02, 

3338386.88; 779851.91, 3338413.57; 

779864.56, 3338439.41; 779878.68, 

3338464.40; 779894.36, 3338488.43; 

779911.61, 3338511.51; 779930.15, 

3338533.40; 779950.16, 3338554.10; 

779971.36, 3338573.50; 779993.66, 

3338591.49; 780017.15, 3338608.07; 

780041.65, 3338623.23; 780066.95, 

3338636.74; 780093.17, 3338648.62; 

780120.00, 3338658.84; 780147.46, 

3338667.42; 780175.35, 3338674.13; 

780203.67, 3338679.18; 780232.22, 

3338682.46; 780260.92, 3338683.85; 

780289.67, 3338683.48; 780318.27, 

3338681.32; 781659.28, 3338623.11; 

783371.06, 3341075.49; 783388.08, 

3341098.65; 783406.52, 3341120.69; 

783426.31, 3341141.53; 783447.37, 

3341161.09; 783469.61, 3341179.28; 

783492.96, 3341196.05; 783517.31, 

3341211.31; 783542.57, 3341225.02; 

783568.64, 3341237.11; 783595.42, 

3341247.54; 783622.80, 3341256.27; 

783650.68, 3341263.26; 783678.94, 

3341268.49; 783707.47, 3341271.93; 

783736.16, 3341273.58; 783764.90, 

3341273.42; 783793.57, 3341271.45; 

783822.06, 3341267.69; 783850.26, 

3341262.15; 783878.06, 3341254.85; 

783905.34, 3341245.82; 783932.00, 

3341235.09; 783957.94, 3341222.71; 

783983.05, 3341208.72; 784007.23, 

3341193.19; 784030.38, 3341176.17; 

784052.42, 3341157.73; 784073.27, 

3341137.94; 784092.82, 3341116.88; 

784111.02, 3341094.63; 784127.78, 

3341071.29; 784143.04, 3341046.94; 

784156.75, 3341021.68; 784168.84, 

3340995.61; 784179.27, 3340968.83; 

784188.00, 3340941.45; 784194.99, 

3340913.57; 784200.22, 3340885.31; 

784203.67, 3340856.78; 784205.31, 

3340828.09; 784205.15, 3340799.35; 

784203.19, 3340770.67; 784199.43, 

3340742.18; 784193.88, 3340713.98; 

784186.58, 3340686.19; 784177.55, 

3340658.90; 784166.82, 3340632.24; 

784154.44, 3340606.31; 784140.46, 

3340581.20; 784124.92, 3340557.02; 

782277.60, 3337914.11; 782294.12, 

3337890.57; 782309.21, 3337866.10; 

782322.78, 3337840.82; 782334.64, 

3337814.60; 782344.88, 3337787.79; 

782353.40, 3337760.27; 782360.19, 

3337732.38; 782365.26, 3337704.10; 

782368.50, 3337675.56; 782369.91, 

3337646.86; 782369.59, 3337618.11; 

782367.34, 3337589.43; 782363.44, 

3337561.03; 782357.70, 3337532.81; 

782350.22, 3337505.10; 782340.98, 

3337477.90; 782330.00, 3337451.33; 

782317.45, 3337425.48; 782303.24, 

3337400.49; 782287.56, 3337376.34; 

782270.41, 3337353.37; 782251.78, 

3337331.48; 782231.86, 3337310.77; 

782210.66, 3337291.37; 782188.27, 

3337273.26; 782164.78, 3337256.68; 

782140.38, 3337241.63; 782114.97, 

3337228.11; 781683.92, 3337059.84; 

780938.43, 3336768.89; 780910.97, 

3336760.31; 780883.08, 3336753.50; 

780854.75, 3336748.56. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS–3, 

Subunit B is located at paragraph 

(6)(xiii)(B) of this entry. 

(xiii) Unit FFS–3, Subunit C— 

Jefferson County, Florida. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Cody, 

Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 784571.80, 3351736.64; 784608.07, 

3351280.60; 784579.36, 3351279.22; 

784554.83, 3351279.59; 784550.62, 

3351279.65; 784521.97, 3351281.88; 

784493.51, 3351285.91; 784465.37, 

3351291.71; 784437.64, 3351299.27; 

784410.44, 3351308.56; 784383.88, 

3351319.54; 784358.06, 3351332.16; 

784333.09, 3351346.38; 784309.05, 

3351362.14; 784286.06, 3351379.37; 

784264.19, 3351398.02; 784243.53, 

3351418.00; 784224.17, 3351439.25; 

784206.19, 3351461.66; 784189.64, 

3351485.16; 784174.61, 3351509.65; 

784161.14, 3351535.04; 784149.29, 

3351561.22; 784139.11, 3351588.10; 

784130.64, 3351615.56; 784123.90, 

3351643.50; 784118.94, 3351671.81; 

784115.76, 3351700.37; 784114.38, 

3351729.08; 784114.81, 3351757.81; 

784117.04, 3351786.47; 784121.07, 

3351814.92; 784126.87, 3351843.07; 

784134.43, 3351870.80; 784143.72, 

3351897.99; 784154.70, 3351924.55; 

784167.32, 3351950.37; 784181.54, 

3351975.35; 784197.30, 3351999.38; 

784214.53, 3352022.38; 784233.18, 

3352044.25; 784253.16, 3352064.90; 

784274.40, 3352084.26; 784296.82, 

3352102.25; 784320.32, 3352118.79; 

784344.81, 3352133.83; 784370.20, 

3352147.30; 784396.38, 3352159.15; 

784423.26, 3352169.33; 784450.72, 

3352177.80; 784478.66, 3352184.53; 

784506.97, 3352189.50; 784535.53, 

3352192.68; 784558.55, 3352193.78; 

784564.24, 3352194.05; 784592.97, 

3352193.63; 784621.63, 3352191.40; 

784650.08, 3352187.37; 784678.23, 

3352181.56; 784705.96, 3352174.00; 

784733.15, 3352164.72; 784759.71, 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6752 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

3352153.74; 784785.53, 3352141.12; 

784810.51, 3352126.90; 784834.54, 

3352111.14; 784857.54, 3352093.90; 

784879.41, 3352075.26; 784900.06, 

3352055.27; 784919.42, 3352034.03; 

784937.41, 3352011.62; 784953.96, 

3351988.12; 784968.99, 3351963.63; 

784982.46, 3351938.24; 784994.31, 

3351912.06; 785004.49, 3351885.18; 

785012.96, 3351857.72; 785019.70, 

3351829.78; 785024.66, 3351801.47; 

785027.84, 3351772.91; 785029.21, 

3351744.20; 785028.79, 3351715.46; 

785026.56, 3351686.81; 785022.53, 

3351658.36; 785016.72, 3351630.21; 

785009.16, 3351602.48; 784999.88, 

3351575.28; 784988.90, 3351548.72; 

784976.28, 3351522.90; 784962.06, 

3351497.93; 784946.30, 3351473.89; 

784929.06, 3351450.90; 784910.42, 

3351429.03; 784890.43, 3351408.37; 

784869.19, 3351389.01; 784846.78, 

3351371.03; 784823.28, 3351354.48; 

784798.79, 3351339.44; 784773.40, 

3351325.98; 784747.21, 3351314.13; 

784720.34, 3351303.95; 784692.88, 

3351295.47; 784664.94, 3351288.74; 

784636.63, 3351283.78; 784608.07, 

3351280.60. 

(B) Note: Map of Unit FFS–3 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6753 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER10FE09.002</GPH>
6754 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(xiv) Unit FFS–4, Subunit A—Baker 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle maps Big Gum Swamp 

and Sanderson North, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 17N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 367084.38, 3347273.00; 367857.36, 

3347865.13; 367885.57, 3347850.05; 

367910.67, 3347848.97; 367939.21, 

3347845.97; 367967.54, 3347841.08; 

367995.46, 3347834.54; 368022.88, 

3347826.11; 368076.03, 3347804.41; 

368126.01, 3347776.10; 368149.58, 

3347759.63; 368172.08, 3347741.85; 

368213.36, 3347702.00; 368249.49, 

3347657.34; 368279.60, 3347608.54; 

368303.41, 3347556.26; 368320.55, 

3347501.41; 368326.47, 3347473.30; 

368330.56, 3347444.98; 368333.52, 

3347387.64; 368329.18, 3347330.38; 

368324.31, 3347302.07; 368309.40, 

3347246.60; 368287.59, 3347193.55; 

368274.29, 3347168.10; 368242.92, 

3347120.04; 368205.82, 3347076.15; 

368163.49, 3347037.42; 368116.61, 

3347004.29; 368066.05, 3346977.19; 

368012.39, 3346956.67; 367956.61, 

3346943.15; 366301.34, 3346652.76; 

366243.94, 3346653.45; 366187.08, 

3346661.34; 366131.66, 3346676.29; 

366078.54, 3346698.07; 366028.58, 

3346726.33; 365982.55, 3346760.63; 

365941.18, 3346800.43; 365889.28, 

3346869.05; 365862.23, 3346919.69; 

365841.75, 3346973.32; 365828.15, 

3347029.09; 365821.64, 3347086.12; 

365822.34, 3347143.52; 365830.23, 

3347200.39; 365845.18, 3347255.81; 

365866.95, 3347308.92; 365895.22, 

3347358.89; 365948.77, 3347426.23; 

365991.09, 3347465.01; 366037.94, 

3347498.19; 366088.58, 3347525.23; 

366142.20, 3347545.72; 367577.52, 

3347903.88; 367634.57, 3347910.39; 

367692.00, 3347909.70; 367748.88, 

3347901.80; 367804.22, 3347886.84; 

367857.36, 3347865.13. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS–3, 

Subunit A is provided at paragraph 

(6)(xv)(B) of this entry. 

(xv) Unit FFS–4, Subunit B: Baker 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle map Sanderson North, 

Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 17N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 372674.15, 3352411.84; 372686.30, 

3351954.90; 372657.58, 3351955.03; 

372628.93, 3351956.98; 372600.46, 

3351960.71; 372572.28, 3351966.23; 

372544.50, 3351973.51; 372517.23, 

3351982.51; 372490.58, 3351993.21; 

372464.66, 3352005.56; 372439.56, 

3352019.52; 372415.39, 3352035.02; 

372392.24, 3352052.02; 372370.20, 

3352070.43; 372349.36, 3352090.19; 

372329.81, 3352111.21; 372311.61, 

3352133.43; 372294.84, 3352156.74; 

372279.57, 3352181.06; 372265.86, 

3352206.29; 372253.76, 3352232.34; 

372243.32, 3352259.09; 372234.58, 

3352286.44; 372227.57, 3352314.29; 

372222.33, 3352342.52; 372218.86, 

3352371.03; 372217.20, 3352399.70; 

372217.34, 3352428.41; 372219.28, 

3352457.06; 372223.02, 3352485.54; 

372228.54, 3352513.72; 372235.81, 

3352541.50; 372244.82, 3352568.77; 

372255.52, 3352595.41; 372267.87, 

3352621.34; 372281.83, 3352646.43; 

372297.33, 3352670.61; 372314.32, 

3352693.76; 372332.73, 3352715.79; 

372352.49, 3352736.63; 372373.52, 

3352756.19; 372395.74, 3352774.38; 

372419.05, 3352791.15; 372443.37, 

3352806.42; 372468.60, 3352820.13; 

372494.64, 3352832.23; 372521.39, 

3352842.68; 372548.75, 3352851.42; 

372576.60, 3352858.42; 372604.83, 

3352863.67; 372633.34, 3352867.13; 

372662.00, 3352868.79; 372690.72, 

3352868.66; 372719.37, 3352866.71; 

372747.84, 3352862.98; 372776.02, 

3352857.46; 372803.80, 3352850.18; 

372831.07, 3352841.18; 372857.72, 

3352830.48; 372883.64, 3352818.12; 

372908.74, 3352804.17; 372932.91, 

3352788.66; 372956.06, 3352771.67; 

372978.10, 3352753.26; 372998.94, 

3352733.50; 373018.49, 3352712.47; 

373036.69, 3352690.26; 373053.46, 

3352666.95; 373068.73, 3352642.63; 

373082.44, 3352617.40; 373094.54, 

3352591.35; 373104.98, 3352564.60; 

373113.72, 3352537.25; 373120.73, 

3352509.40; 373125.97, 3352481.17; 

373129.43, 3352452.66; 373131.10, 

3352423.99; 373130.96, 3352395.28; 

373129.02, 3352366.63; 373125.28, 

3352338.15; 373119.76, 3352309.97; 

373112.49, 3352282.19; 373103.48, 

3352254.92; 373092.78, 3352228.28; 

373080.43, 3352202.35; 373066.47, 

3352177.26; 373050.97, 3352153.08; 

373033.98, 3352129.93; 373015.57, 

3352107.90; 372995.81, 3352087.06; 

372974.78, 3352067.50; 372952.56, 

3352049.31; 372929.25, 3352032.54; 

372904.93, 3352017.27; 372879.70, 

3352003.56; 372853.66, 3351991.46; 

372826.91, 3351981.01; 372799.55, 

3351972.27; 372771.70, 3351965.27; 

372743.47, 3351960.02; 372714.96, 

3351956.56; 372686.30, 3351954.90. 

(B) Note: Map of Unit FFS–4 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6755 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2er10fe09.003</GPH>
6756 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(7) Frosted flatwood salamander— 

Berkeley, Charleston, and Jasper 

Counties, South Carolina. 

(i) Unit FFS–5, Subunit A—Jasper 

County, South Carolina. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangle map 

Limehouse, South Carolina. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 17N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 497847.74, 3566350.32; 498446.09, 

3566295.60; 498439.16, 3566219.48; 

498471.15, 3566178.02; 498514.08, 

3566169.34; 498465.77, 3566061.18; 

498347.55, 3566000.50; 498335.98, 

3566046.55; 498253.70, 3566211.29; 

498242.87, 3566287.84; 498145.31, 

3566241.91; 498093.47, 3566197.40; 

497998.76, 3566059.86; 497934.00, 

3565901.25; 497898.67, 3565909.74; 

497750.14, 3565959.14; 497684.01, 

3565953.12; 497606.99, 3565916.86; 

497442.74, 3566050.55; 497406.11, 

3566214.18; 497415.01, 3566475.87; 

497493.26, 3566667.21; 497540.65, 

3566737.25; 497620.82, 3566798.86; 

497732.91, 3566816.47; 497862.02, 

3566803.14; 497974.49, 3566781.53; 

497979.42, 3566780.58; 497992.64, 

3566773.81; 497990.36, 3566773.41; 

497991.28, 3566768.03; 497987.84, 

3566757.91; 497989.91, 3566748.69; 

497989.47, 3566747.94; 497988.60, 

3566711.90; 497989.72, 3566675.82; 

498042.65, 3566632.46; 498093.51, 

3566608.11; 498098.16, 3566599.05; 

498150.81, 3566572.33; 498174.50, 

3566503.10; 498224.43, 3566468.83; 

498297.24, 3566436.54; 498367.33, 

3566396.68; 498406.68, 3566344.87; 

498446.09, 3566295.60. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS–5, 

Subunit A is provided at paragraph 

(7)(ii)(B) of this entry. 

(ii) Unit FFS–5, Subunit B—Jasper 

County, South Carolina. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangle map 

Hardeeville, South Carolina. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 17N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 489561.94, 3573503.59; 489722.85, 

3573967.97; 489813.22, 3573903.16; 

489904.81, 3573840.10; 489926.27, 

3573824.52; 489946.02, 3573806.80; 

489963.82, 3573787.14; 489979.50, 

3573765.74; 489992.88, 3573742.83; 

490003.82, 3573718.67; 490012.20, 

3573693.50; 490017.94, 3573667.60; 

490016.20, 3573652.66; 490013.19, 

3573637.92; 490015.98, 3573632.12; 

490025.87, 3573604.58; 490032.87, 

3573576.16; 490036.91, 3573547.18; 

490037.03, 3573543.60; 490041.81, 

3573520.55; 490043.92, 3573497.11; 

490043.41, 3573474.57; 490040.43, 

3573452.23; 490035.01, 3573430.36; 

490027.22, 3573409.21; 490026.77, 

3573385.43; 490023.98, 3573361.81; 

490018.89, 3573338.58; 490011.54, 

3573315.96; 490002.00, 3573294.17; 

489990.37, 3573273.42; 489980.99, 

3573259.55; 489970.67, 3573246.37; 

489959.67, 3573227.66; 489937.65, 

3573195.84; 489913.35, 3573165.71; 

489886.91, 3573137.45; 489858.47, 

3573111.20; 489828.18, 3573087.11; 

489796.21, 3573065.31; 489762.72, 

3573045.91; 489727.90, 3573029.02; 

489644.36, 3573024.70; 489560.73, 

3573022.61; 489477.08, 3573022.74; 

489393.46, 3573025.10; 489359.85, 

3573040.41; 489327.69, 3573058.58; 

489297.23, 3573079.47; 489268.70, 

3573102.92; 489242.31, 3573128.77; 

489218.27, 3573156.80; 489196.75, 

3573186.82; 489177.92, 3573218.59; 

489161.92, 3573251.88; 489148.87, 

3573286.44; 489138.87, 3573321.99; 

489085.29, 3573601.84; 489092.79, 

3573641.38; 489103.20, 3573680.27; 

489116.45, 3573718.27; 489132.48, 

3573755.19; 489151.20, 3573790.83; 

489172.50, 3573824.98; 489196.26, 

3573857.47; 489214.53, 3573880.49; 

489235.17, 3573901.42; 489257.94, 

3573920.01; 489282.57, 3573936.04; 

489308.78, 3573949.34; 489336.26, 

3573959.75; 489364.71, 3573967.15; 

489393.78, 3573971.44; 489423.15, 

3573972.59; 489452.47, 3573970.58; 

489453.58, 3573970.39; 489507.35, 

3573975.17; 489561.29, 3573977.32; 

489615.28, 3573976.84; 489669.17, 

3573973.72; 489722.85, 3573967.97. 

(B) Note: Map of Unit FFS–5 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6757 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2er10fe09.004</GPH>
6758 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(iii) Unit FFS–6—Berkeley County, 

South Carolina. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle map Cainhoy, South 

Carolina. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 17N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 611278.81, 3648848.98; 613513.07, 

3649951.18; 613527.98, 3649895.75; 

613535.82, 3649838.89; 613536.47, 

3649781.49; 613529.62, 3649718.85; 

613516.29, 3649668.71; 613495.76, 

3649615.10; 613468.68, 3649564.49; 

613435.47, 3649517.67; 613416.73, 

3649495.91; 613396.66, 3649475.38; 

613352.85, 3649438.29; 613304.74, 

3649406.98; 613265.68, 3649387.26; 

613198.69, 3649363.59; 613142.44, 

3649352.20; 613087.44, 3649348.04; 

613094.83, 3649293.89; 613095.48, 

3649236.49; 613088.93, 3649179.46; 

613075.29, 3649123.71; 613054.77, 

3649070.10; 613042.02, 3649044.36; 

613027.69, 3649019.49; 612994.47, 

3648972.67; 612955.66, 3648930.38; 

612911.85, 3648893.29; 612888.28, 

3648876.88; 612863.74, 3648861.98; 

612812.08, 3648836.95; 609500.97, 

3647503.91; 609474.07, 3647493.88; 

609446.58, 3647485.56; 609418.63, 

3647478.99; 609390.32, 3647474.18; 

609361.76, 3647471.16; 609333.08, 

3647469.94; 609304.37, 3647470.53; 

609275.75, 3647472.91; 609247.34, 

3647477.09; 609219.25, 3647483.04; 

609191.59, 3647490.74; 609164.46, 

3647500.17; 609137.99, 3647511.28; 

609112.26, 3647524.03; 609087.38, 

3647538.37; 609063.45, 3647554.25; 

609040.57, 3647571.59; 609018.82, 

3647590.34; 608998.29, 3647610.42; 

608979.07, 3647631.75; 608961.22, 

3647654.24; 608944.81, 3647677.81; 

608929.92, 3647702.36; 608916.60, 

3647727.80; 608904.91, 3647754.02; 

608894.88, 3647780.93; 608886.56, 

3647808.42; 608879.99, 3647836.37; 

608875.18, 3647864.68; 608872.16, 

3647893.23; 608870.94, 3647921.92; 

608871.52, 3647950.63; 608873.91, 

3647979.25; 608878.08, 3648007.66; 

608884.04, 3648035.75; 608891.74, 

3648063.41; 608901.17, 3648090.53; 

608912.28, 3648117.01; 608925.03, 

3648142.74; 608939.37, 3648167.62; 

608955.25, 3648191.54; 608972.59, 

3648214.43; 608991.34, 3648236.18; 

609011.42, 3648256.70; 609032.74, 

3648275.93; 609055.24, 3648293.78; 

609078.81, 3648310.18; 609103.36, 

3648325.08; 612197.25, 3649979.02; 

612248.91, 3650004.05; 612275.81, 

3650014.08; 612331.23, 3650028.99; 

612359.55, 3650033.80; 612416.80, 

3650038.06; 612474.12, 3650035.11; 

612502.53, 3650030.94; 612558.29, 

3650017.30; 612611.90, 3649996.77; 

612655.36, 3649973.81; 612691.29, 

3650045.52; 612724.50, 3650092.34; 

612743.24, 3650114.09; 612784.64, 

3650153.86; 612830.69, 3650188.12; 

612855.24, 3650203.02; 612906.90, 

3650228.05; 612961.29, 3650246.41; 

613025.74, 3650257.06; 613074.79, 

3650262.06; 613103.50, 3650261.49; 

613160.52, 3650254.94; 613216.28, 

3650241.30; 613269.89, 3650220.78; 

613295.63, 3650208.03; 613320.51, 

3650193.70; 613367.33, 3650160.49; 

613409.62, 3650121.67; 613428.85, 

3650100.35; 613463.11, 3650054.30; 

613491.34, 3650004.31; 613513.07, 

3649951.18. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS–6 is 

provided at paragraph (7)(iv)(B) of this 

entry. 

(iv) Unit FFS–7—Charleston County, 

South Carolina. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle map, Santee, South 

Carolina. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 17N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 648576.17, 3668543.24; 648579.86, 

3668086.10; 648551.15, 3668086.77; 

648522.54, 3668089.24; 648494.14, 

3668093.50; 648466.06, 3668099.54; 

648438.42, 3668107.33; 648411.32, 

3668116.84; 648384.87, 3668128.03; 

648359.18, 3668140.86; 648334.34, 

3668155.28; 648310.46, 3668171.23; 

648287.62, 3668188.65; 648265.93, 

3668207.47; 648245.46, 3668227.61; 

648226.29, 3668249.00; 648208.50, 

3668271.55; 648192.17, 3668295.17; 

648177.35, 3668319.77; 648164.11, 

3668345.25; 648152.49, 3668371.52; 

648142.54, 3668398.46; 648134.31, 

3668425.97; 648127.82, 3668453.95; 

648123.09, 3668482.28; 648120.16, 

3668510.84; 648119.03, 3668539.54; 

648119.70, 3668568.25; 648122.17, 

3668596.86; 648126.43, 3668625.26; 

648132.47, 3668653.34; 648140.26, 

3668680.98; 648149.77, 3668708.08; 

648160.96, 3668734.53; 648173.79, 

3668760.22; 648188.21, 3668785.06; 

648204.16, 3668808.94; 648221.58, 

3668831.78; 648240.40, 3668853.47; 

648260.54, 3668873.94; 648281.93, 

3668893.11; 648304.48, 3668910.89; 

648328.10, 3668927.23; 648352.70, 

3668942.05; 648378.18, 3668955.29; 

648404.45, 3668966.91; 648431.39, 

3668976.86; 648458.90, 3668985.09; 

648486.88, 3668991.58; 648515.21, 

3668996.30; 648543.77, 3668999.24; 

648572.47, 3669000.37; 648601.18, 

3668999.70; 648629.80, 3668997.23; 

648658.20, 3668992.97; 648686.27, 

3668986.93; 648713.92, 3668979.14; 

648741.02, 3668969.63; 648767.46, 

3668958.44; 648793.16, 3668945.61; 

648818.00, 3668931.19; 648841.88, 

3668915.24; 648864.71, 3668897.82; 

648886.41, 3668879.00; 648906.88, 

3668858.86; 648926.04, 3668837.47; 

648943.83, 3668814.92; 648960.16, 

3668791.30; 648974.98, 3668766.70; 

648988.23, 3668741.22; 648999.85, 

3668714.96; 649009.79, 3668688.01; 

649018.03, 3668660.50; 649024.52, 

3668632.53; 649029.24, 3668604.20; 

649032.17, 3668575.63; 649033.31, 

3668546.93; 649032.64, 3668518.22; 

649030.17, 3668489.61; 649025.90, 

3668461.21; 649019.86, 3668433.13; 

649012.08, 3668405.49; 649002.57, 

3668378.39; 648991.37, 3668351.94; 

648978.54, 3668326.25; 648964.12, 

3668301.41; 648948.17, 3668277.53; 

648930.76, 3668254.69; 648911.94, 

3668233.00; 648891.79, 3668212.53; 

648870.41, 3668193.36; 648847.86, 

3668175.58; 648824.23, 3668159.24; 

648799.63, 3668144.42; 648774.15, 

3668131.18; 648747.89, 3668119.56; 

648720.94, 3668109.62; 648693.43, 

3668101.38; 648665.46, 3668094.89; 

648637.13, 3668090.17; 648608.56, 

3668087.23; 648579.86, 3668086.10. 

(B) Note: Map of Units FFS–6 and 

FFS–7 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6759 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER10FE09.005</GPH>
6760 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander 

(Ambystoma bishopi) 

(1) Critical habitat units are depicted 

for Calhoun, Holmes, Jackson, Santa 

Rosa, Walton, and Washington Counties 

in Florida; and Baker and Miller 

Counties in Georgia on the maps below. 

(2) The primary constituent elements 

of critical habitat for the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander are the habitat 

components that provide: 

(i) Breeding habitat. Small (generally 

less than 1 to 10 ac (less than 0.4 to 4.0 

ha)), acidic, depressional standing 

bodies of freshwater (wetlands) that: 

(A) Are seasonally flooded by rainfall 

in late fall or early winter and dry in late 

spring or early summer; 

(B) Are geographically isolated from 

other water bodies; 

(C) Occur within pine flatwoodssavanna communities; 

(D) Are dominated by grasses and 

grass-like species in the ground layer 

and overstories of pond-cypress, 

blackgum, and slash pine; 

(E) Have a relatively open canopy, 

necessary to maintain the herbaceous 

component that serves as cover for 

flatwoods salamander larvae and their 

aquatic invertebrate prey; and 

(F) Typically have a burrowing 

crayfish fauna, but, due to periodic 

drying, the breeding ponds typically 

lack large, predatory fish (for example, 

Lepomis (sunfish), Micropterus (bass), 

Amia calva (bowfin)). 

(ii) Non-breeding habitat. Upland 

pine flatwoods-savanna habitat that is 

open, mesic woodland maintained by 

frequent fires and that: 

(A) Is within 1,500 ft (457 m) of 

adjacent and accessible breeding ponds; 

(B) Contains crayfish burrows or other 

underground habitat that the flatwoods 

salamander depends upon for food, 

shelter, and protection from the 

elements and predation; 

(C) Has an organic hardpan in the soil 

profile, which inhibits subsurface water 

penetration and typically results in 

moist soils with water often at or near 

the surface under normal conditions; 

and 

(D) Often has wiregrasses as the 

dominant grasses in the abundant 

herbaceous ground cover, which 

supports the rich herbivorous 

invertebrates that serve as a food source 

for the reticulated flatwoods 

salamander. 

(iii) Dispersal habitat. Upland habitat 

areas between nonbreeding and 

breeding habitat that allows for 

salamander movement between such 

sites and that is characterized by: 

(A) A mix of vegetation types 

representing a transition between 

wetland and upland vegetation 

(ecotone); 

(B) An open canopy and abundant 

native herbaceous species; 

(C) Moist soils as described in 

paragraph (2)(ii); and 

(D) Subsurface structure, such as deep 

litter cover or burrows that provide 

shelter for salamanders during seasonal 

movements. 

(3) Critical habitat does not include 

manmade structures (such as buildings, 

aqueducts, runways, roads, and other 

paved areas) and the land on which they 

are located existing within the legal 

boundaries on the effective date of this 

rule. 

(4) Critical habitat map units. Data 

layers defining map units were created 

on a base of USGS 7.5′ quadrangles, and 

critical habitat units were then mapped 

using Universal Transverse Mercator 

(UTM) coordinates. 

(5) Note: Index map of critical habitat 

for the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6761 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER10FE09.006</GPH>
6762 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(6) Reticulated flatwood salamander— 

Calhoun, Holmes, Jackson, Santa Rosa, 

Walton and Washington Counties, 

Florida. 

(i) Unit RFS–1—Santa Rosa County, 

Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 scale 

quadrangle map Garcon Point, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, North American Datum 

of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates, (E, N): 

492983.94, 3372029.94; 493099.21, 

3373387.45; 493154.87, 3373453.03; 

493198.40, 3373490.44; 493271.61, 

3373535.60; 493351.98, 3373566.25; 

493436.67, 3373581.30; 493522.69, 

3373580.20; 493551.12, 3373576.25; 

493606.97, 3373563.02; 493686.54, 

3373530.34; 493735.56, 3373500.50; 

493801.14, 3373444.83; 493838.55, 

3373401.30; 493870.20, 3373353.43; 

493905.84, 3373275.14; 493921.15, 

3373219.82; 493930.85, 3373134.35; 

493928.32, 3373077.01; 493918.62, 

3373020.45; 493901.91, 3372965.54; 

492974.90, 3370886.40; 492965.68, 

3370859.21; 492954.77, 3370832.65; 

492942.22, 3370806.83; 492928.07, 

3370781.84; 492912.38, 3370757.80; 

492895.22, 3370734.79; 492876.64, 

3370712.90; 492856.72, 3370692.22; 

492835.54, 3370672.83; 492813.19, 

3370654.81; 492789.75, 3370638.23; 

492765.32, 3370623.16; 492739.98, 

3370609.64; 492713.85, 3370597.75; 

492687.03, 3370587.52; 492659.61, 

3370578.99; 492631.71, 3370572.21; 

492603.45, 3370567.18; 492574.92, 

3370563.95; 492546.24, 3370562.51; 

492517.54, 3370562.87; 492488.91, 

3370565.04; 492460.47, 3370568.99; 

492432.34, 3370574.73; 492404.62, 

3370582.22; 492377.43, 3370591.44; 

492350.87, 3370602.35; 492320.06, 

3370618.11; 492291.54, 3370614.88; 

492262.86, 3370613.44; 492234.15, 

3370613.80; 492205.52, 3370615.97; 

492177.09, 3370619.93; 492148.96, 

3370625.66; 492121.24, 3370633.16; 

492094.05, 3370642.37; 492067.49, 

3370653.28; 492041.67, 3370665.83; 

492016.69, 3370679.98; 491992.64, 

3370695.67; 491969.63, 3370712.84; 

491947.74, 3370731.42; 491927.07, 

3370751.34; 491907.68, 3370772.52; 

491889.66, 3370794.87; 491873.08, 

3370818.31; 491858.01, 3370842.75; 

491850.37, 3370857.07; 491865.61, 

3370901.72; 491918.43, 3370965.16; 

491965.55, 3371021.75; 492011.53, 

3371083.74; 492053.38, 3371140.16; 

492103.93, 3371212.08; 492141.72, 

3371264.53; 492176.37, 3371309.64; 

492207.14, 3371351.35; 492243.74, 

3371397.83; 492283.27, 3371453.23; 

492331.51, 3371520.83; 493069.37, 

3373338.43; 493099.21, 3373387.45. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS–1 

is provided at paragraph (6)(v)(B) of this 

entry. 

(ii) Unit RFS–2, Subunit A—Santa 

Rosa County, Florida. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Harold, 

Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, North American Datum 

of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates, (E, N): 

501542.20, 3392876.13; 501578.50, 

3392420.55; 501549.82, 3392419.17; 

501521.11, 3392419.59; 501492.49, 

3392421.82; 501464.06, 3392425.84; 

501435.94, 392431.63; 501408.24, 

3392439.18; 501381.07, 3392448.45; 

501354.53, 3392459.42; 501328.74, 

3392472.02; 501303.78, 3392486.22; 

501279.77, 3392501.96; 501256.80, 

392519.18; 501234.95, 3392537.80; 

501214.31, 3392557.76; 501194.97, 

3392578.98; 501176.99, 3392601.37; 

501160.46, 3392624.84; 501145.44, 

3392649.31; 501131.98, 392674.67; 

501120.14, 3392700.83; 501109.96, 

3392727.67; 501101.49, 3392755.11; 

501094.76, 3392783.02; 501089.80, 

3392811.30; 501086.62, 3392839.83; 

501085.24, 392868.51; 501085.25, 

3392868.93; 501085.66, 3392897.21; 

501086.27, 3392904.98; 501087.89, 

3392925.84; 501091.91, 3392954.27; 

501097.70, 3392982.39; 501105.25, 

393010.09; 501114.52, 3393037.26; 

501125.49, 3393063.80; 501138.09, 

3393089.59; 501152.29, 3393114.54; 

501168.03, 3393138.56; 501185.25, 

3393161.53; 501203.87, 393183.38; 

501223.83, 3393204.02; 501245.05, 

3393223.36; 501267.44, 3393241.33; 

501290.91, 3393257.87; 501315.38, 

3393272.89; 501340.74, 3393286.35; 

501366.90, 393298.19; 501393.74, 

3393308.36; 501421.18, 3393316.83; 

501449.09, 3393323.56; 501477.37, 

3393328.53; 501505.90, 3393331.70; 

501534.58, 3393333.08; 501563.29, 

393332.66; 501584.95, 3393330.98; 

501591.91, 3393330.44; 501613.98, 

3393327.32; 501620.34, 3393326.42; 

501648.46, 3393320.62; 501676.16, 

3393313.07; 501703.33, 393303.80; 

501729.87, 3393292.84; 501755.66, 

3393280.23; 501780.61, 3393266.03; 

501804.63, 3393250.29; 501827.60, 

3393233.08; 501849.45, 3393214.45; 

501870.09, 393194.49; 501889.43, 

3393173.27; 501907.41, 3393150.89; 

501923.94, 3393127.41; 501938.96, 

3393102.95; 501952.42, 3393077.59; 

501964.26, 3393051.43; 501974.44, 

393024.58; 501982.91, 3392997.15; 

501989.64, 3392969.24; 501994.60, 

3392940.96; 501997.78, 3392912.43; 

501999.16, 3392883.75; 501998.73, 

3392855.04; 501996.51, 392826.42; 

501992.49, 3392797.99; 501986.70, 

3392769.87; 501979.15, 3392742.17; 

501969.87, 3392715.00; 501958.91, 

3392688.46; 501946.31, 3392662.66; 

501932.11, 392637.71; 501916.37, 

3392613.70; 501899.15, 3392590.72; 

501880.52, 3392568.87; 501860.56, 

3392548.24; 501839.35, 3392528.89; 

501816.96, 3392510.92; 501793.48, 

392494.39; 501769.02, 3392479.36; 

501743.66, 3392465.90; 501717.50, 

3392454.06; 501690.66, 3392443.89; 

501663.22, 3392435.42; 501635.31, 

3392428.69; 501607.03, 3392423.73; 

501578.50, 3392420.55. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS–2, 

Subunit A is provided at paragraph 

(6)(v)(B) of this entry. 

(iii) Unit RFS–2, Subunit B—Santa 

Rosa County, Florida. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangle map 

Floridale, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 518978.93, 3390847.46; 519015.23, 

3390391.88; 518986.55, 3390390.50; 

518957.84, 3390390.92; 518929.22, 

3390393.14; 518900.79, 3390397.16; 

518872.67, 390402.96; 518844.97, 

3390410.51; 518817.80, 3390419.78; 

518791.26, 3390430.74; 518765.46, 

3390443.35; 518740.51, 3390457.55; 

518716.50, 3390473.29; 518693.52, 

3390490.50; 518671.67, 3390509.13; 

518651.04, 3390529.09; 518631.69, 

3390550.31; 518613.72, 3390572.70; 

518597.19, 3390596.17; 518582.16, 

3390620.64; 518568.70, 3390646.00; 

518556.86, 3390672.15; 518546.69, 

3390699.00; 518538.22, 3390726.43; 

518531.49, 3390754.34; 518526.53, 

3390782.62; 518523.35, 3390811.16; 

518521.97, 3390839.83; 518522.39, 

3390868.54; 518524.62, 3390897.17; 

518528.63, 3390925.59; 518534.43, 

3390953.71; 518541.98, 3390981.41; 

518551.25, 3391008.59; 518562.21, 

3391035.12; 518574.82, 3391060.92; 

518589.02, 3391085.87; 518604.76, 

3391109.88; 518621.98, 3391132.86; 

518640.60, 3391154.71; 518660.56, 

3391175.35; 518681.78, 3391194.69; 

518704.17, 3391212.66; 518727.64, 

3391229.19; 518752.11, 3391244.22; 

518777.47, 3391257.68; 518803.62, 

3391269.52; 518830.47, 3391279.69; 

518857.91, 3391288.16; 518885.82, 

3391294.89; 518914.10, 3391299.86; 

518942.63, 3391303.03; 518971.31, 

3391304.41; 519000.02, 3391303.99; 

519028.64, 3391301.77; 519057.07, 

3391297.75; 519085.19, 3391291.95; 

519112.89, 3391284.40; 519140.06, 

3391275.13; 519166.60, 3391264.17; 

519192.39, 3391251.56; 519217.35, 

3391237.36; 519241.36, 3391221.62; 

519264.33, 3391204.41; 519286.18, 

3391185.78; 519306.82, 3391165.82; 

519326.16, 3391144.60; 519344.14, 

3391122.21; 519360.67, 3391098.74; 

519375.69, 3391074.28; 519389.16, 

3391048.92; 519401.00, 3391022.77; 

519410.33, 3390998.13; 519411.17, 

3390995.92; 519419.64, 3390968.48; 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6763 

519426.37, 3390940.57; 519431.34, 

3390912.29; 519434.51, 3390883.76; 

519435.89, 3390855.08; 519435.47, 

3390826.37; 519433.25, 3390797.7493; 

519429.2274, 3390769.3210; 

519423.4325, 3390741.2012; 

519415.8831, 3390713.50; 519406.61, 

3390686.33; 519395.65, 3390659.79; 

519383.04, 3390634.00; 519368.84, 

3390609.04; 519353.10, 3390585.03; 

519335.89, 3390562.06; 519317.26, 

3390540.21; 519297.30, 3390519.57; 

519276.08, 3390500.23; 519253.69, 

3390482.25; 519230.22, 3390465.72; 

519205.75, 3390450.70; 519180.39, 

3390437.24; 519154.24, 3390425.40; 

519127.39, 3390415.22; 519099.96, 

3390406.75; 519072.05, 3390400.02; 

519043.77, 3390395.06; 519025.17, 

3390392.99; 519015.23, 3390391.88. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS–2, 

Subunit B is provided at paragraph 

(6)(v)(B) of this entry. 

(iv) Unit RFS–3, Subunit A—Santa 

Rosa County, Florida. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Holley, 

Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 503177.78, 3363967.21; 503665.03, 

3364056.93; 503673.05, 3364029.36; 

503679.32, 3364001.35; 503683.82, 

3363972.99; 503686.53, 3363944.41; 

503687.44, 3363915.71; 503694.98, 

3363896.36; 503703.23, 3363884.01; 

503713.36, 3363875.67; 503720.87, 

3363866.60; 503726.39, 3363857.48; 

503733.34, 3363843.78; 503741.25, 

3363818.20; 503752.72, 3363782.15; 

503757.95, 3363757.83; 503766.30, 

3363741.51; 503653.07, 3363742.06; 

503644.01, 3363721.11; 503630.98, 

3363695.52; 503615.44, 3363669.75; 

503614.55, 3363724.18; 503603.43, 

3363777.35; 503601.27, 3363799.83; 

503594.64, 3363834.69; 503563.00, 

3363831.09; 503563.97, 3363824.67; 

503558.81, 3363820.93; 503559.46, 

3363811.37; 503555.68, 3363800.73; 

503543.49, 3363787.96; 503527.75, 

3363771.89; 503514.02, 3363772.76; 

503464.40, 3363773.57; 503448.85, 

3363749.85; 503448.44, 3363558.27; 

503320.62, 3363559.79; 503273.43, 

3363560.71; 503273.49, 3363572.75; 

503279.14, 3363573.95; 503279.03, 

3363592.72; 503284.42, 3363598.55; 

503277.70, 3363622.86; 503272.12, 

3363658.96; 503257.00, 3363659.53; 

503220.26, 3363657.70; 503211.46, 

3363656.94; 503211.34, 3363632.86; 

503198.99, 3363600.69; 503189.65, 

3363605.42; 503175.37, 3363661.31; 

503174.55, 3363690.00; 503175.30, 

3363735.30; 503170.12, 3363757.64; 

503161.91, 3363768.67; 503127.37, 

3363773.12; 503100.70, 3363791.93; 

503033.44, 3363790.29; 502978.97, 

3363827.84; 502954.55, 3363827.72; 

502938.01, 3363827.31; 502928.95, 

3363818.51; 502929.56, 3363685.06; 

502929.74, 3363569.45; 502821.80, 

3363570.13; 502821.27, 3363591.92; 

502814.36, 3363603.64; 502789.75, 

3363608.33; 502751.22, 3363613.34; 

502704.61, 3363624.01; 502670.48, 

3363639.13; 502640.35, 3363788.37; 

502630.38, 3363844.28; 502624.76, 

3363884.45; 502620.15, 3363937.85; 

502612.79, 3363995.15; 502605.87, 

3364010.90; 502632.10, 3364030.43; 

502667.63, 3364049.11; 502682.24, 

3364047.48; 502713.23, 3364052.86; 

502771.52, 3364051.63; 502794.68, 

3364052.20; 502805.45, 3364083.69; 

502816.85, 3364110.04; 502829.87, 

3364135.63; 502844.48, 3364160.34; 

502860.61, 3364184.09; 502878.20, 

3364206.79; 502897.18, 3364228.33; 

502917.48, 3364248.63; 502939.01, 

3364267.63; 502961.69, 3364285.23; 

502985.43, 3364301.38; 503010.14, 

3364316.00; 503035.71, 3364329.04; 

503062.06, 3364340.45; 503089.07, 

3364350.18; 503116.64, 3364358.20; 

503144.65, 3364364.47; 503173.01, 

3364368.97; 503201.59, 3364371.69; 

503230.29, 3364372.60; 503258.99, 

3364371.70; 503287.57, 3364369.01; 

503315.93, 3364364.53; 503343.95, 

3364358.27; 503371.52, 3364350.27; 

503398.54, 3364340.55; 503424.89, 

3364329.16; 503450.47, 3364316.13; 

503475.19, 3364301.52; 503498.94, 

3364285.39; 503521.63, 3364267.80; 

503543.18, 3364248.82; 503563.48, 

3364228.53; 503582.48, 3364207.00; 

503600.08, 3364184.32; 503616.23, 

3364160.57; 503630.85, 3364135.87; 

503643.89, 3364110.29; 503655.30, 

3364083.94; 503665.03, 3364056.93. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS–3, 

Subunit A is provided at paragraph 

(6)(v)(B) of this entry. 

(v) Unit RFS–3, Subunit B—Santa 

Rosa County, Florida. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Holley, 

Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, (E, 

N): 507814.78, 3364090.74; 508038.93, 

3364260.63; 508159.63, 3364258.28; 

508158.08, 3364132.67; 508156.37, 

3364018.27; 508155.42, 3363957.25; 

508106.06, 3363958.06; 508068.35, 

3363958.68; 508035.07, 3363959.24; 

507887.21, 3363961.45; 507885.38, 

3363855.42; 507685.15, 3363855.35; 

507684.90, 3363837.37; 507612.21, 

3363836.12; 507612.77, 3363907.73; 

507612.90, 3363927.61; 507638.84, 

3363928.05; 507638.99, 3363940.21; 

507583.59, 3364018.73; 507491.86, 

3364016.60; 507493.27, 3364096.55; 

507471.91, 3364096.05; 507455.12, 

3364095.65; 507457.47, 3364243.92; 

507529.64, 3364243.19; 507566.34, 

3364270.07; 507830.20, 3364271.25; 

507890.35, 3364271.37; 507890.09, 

3364262.80; 507967.94, 3364261.67; 

508038.93, 3364260.63. 

(B) Note: Map of Units RFS–1, RFS– 

2, and RFS–3 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6764 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER10FE09.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6765 

(vi) Unit RFS–6, Subunit A—Walton 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle map Bruce, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 601647.75, 3373576.77; 601493.33, 

3374109.03; 601522.04, 3374108.60; 

601550.67, 3374106.38; 601579.10, 

3374102.36; 601607.23, 3374096.56; 

601634.93, 3374089.01; 601662.11, 

3374079.74; 601688.65, 3374068.77; 

601714.44, 3374056.17; 601739.40, 

3374041.96; 601763.41, 3374026.22; 

601786.39, 3374009.00; 601808.25, 

3373990.37; 601828.89, 3373970.41; 

601848.23, 3373949.19; 601866.21, 

3373926.80; 601882.74, 3373903.32; 

601897.76, 3373878.85; 601911.23, 

3373853.49; 601923.07, 3373827.33; 

601933.24, 3373800.48; 601941.71, 

3373773.04; 601948.44, 3373745.13; 

601953.40, 3373716.84; 601956.58, 

3373688.31; 601957.96, 3373659.62; 

601957.54, 3373630.91; 601955.31, 

3373602.29; 601951.29, 3373573.85; 

601945.50, 3373545.73; 601937.95, 

3373518.03; 601932.81, 3373498.30; 

602077.97, 3373412.75; 602148.71, 

3373370.38; 602189.04, 3373346.29; 

602226.02, 3373324.08; 602242.81, 

3373314.59; 602251.57, 3373308.87; 

602249.73, 3373302.87; 602248.52, 

3373298.22; 602244.07, 3373290.84; 

602232.30, 3373285.25; 602226.49, 

3373279.16; 602219.36, 3373273.03; 

602212.40, 3373260.30; 602203.50, 

3373245.54; 602189.89, 3373207.54; 

602185.07, 3373188.25; 602182.00, 

3373178.92; 602174.92, 3373170.82; 

602167.16, 3373163.35; 602161.52, 

3373150.66; 602159.44, 3373128.14; 

602152.20, 3373073.77; 602147.72, 

3373041.28; 602068.26, 3373014.83; 

602046.87, 3372996.45; 602018.93, 

3372975.27; 601977.95, 3372972.42; 

601920.70, 3372984.20; 601893.12, 

3373001.35; 601867.36, 3373025.15; 

601844.26, 3373048.36; 601816.50, 

3373072.78; 601799.99, 3373071.04; 

601789.68, 3373059.55; 601764.95, 

3373042.41; 601751.13, 3373012.99; 

601725.10, 3372994.49; 601700.34, 

3373005.10; 601680.55, 3373028.40; 

601659.92, 3373058.94; 601630.17, 

3373083.30; 601595.72, 3373083.76; 

601568.63, 3373081.76; 601562.85, 

3373153.48; 601546.32, 3373152.40; 

601512.87, 3373139.67; 601482.57, 

3373133.62; 601457.54, 3373128.37; 

601443.06, 3373124.70; 601441.20, 

3373198.67; 601422.79, 3373201.67; 

601394.66, 3373207.46; 601366.96, 

3373215.01; 601339.78, 3373224.29; 

601313.25, 3373235.25; 601287.45, 

3373247.86; 601262.49, 3373262.06; 

601238.48, 3373277.81; 601215.50, 

3373295.02; 601193.65, 3373313.65; 

601173.01, 3373333.62; 601153.66, 

3373354.84; 601135.69, 3373377.23; 

601119.15, 3373400.70; 601104.13, 

3373425.17; 601090.67, 3373450.54; 

601078.83, 3373476.70; 601068.65, 

3373503.55; 601060.18, 3373530.98; 

601053.45, 3373558.90; 601048.49, 

3373587.18; 601045.31, 3373615.72; 

601043.93, 3373644.40; 601044.35, 

3373673.11; 601046.58, 3373701.74; 

601050.60, 3373730.17; 601056.39, 

3373758.30; 601063.95, 3373786.00; 

601073.22, 3373813.17; 601084.18, 

3373839.71; 601096.79, 3373865.51; 

601111.00, 3373890.47; 601126.74, 

3373914.48; 601143.96, 3373937.46; 

601162.58, 3373959.31; 601182.55, 

3373979.95; 601203.77, 3373999.30; 

601226.16, 3374017.27; 601249.64, 

3374033.81; 601274.11, 3374048.83; 

601299.47, 3374062.29; 601325.63, 

3374074.13; 601352.48, 3374084.31; 

601379.92, 3374092.78; 601407.83, 

3374099.51; 601436.11, 3374104.47; 

601464.65, 3374107.65; 601493.33, 

3374109.03. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS–6, 

Subunit A is provided at paragraph 

(6)(ix)(B) of this entry. 

(vii) Unit RFS–6, Subunit B— 

Washington County, Florida. From 

USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map 

Bruce, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 607444.16, 3365585.74; 607435.59, 

3366042.75; 607464.30, 3366042.38; 

607492.93, 3366040.22; 607521.37, 

3366036.26; 607549.51, 3366030.52; 

607577.23, 3366023.03; 607604.42, 

3366013.81; 607630.98, 3366002.90; 

607656.81, 3365990.35; 607681.79, 

3365976.20; 607705.84, 3365960.50; 

607728.86, 3365943.33; 607750.75, 

3365924.75; 607771.43, 3365904.83; 

607790.82, 3365883.65; 607808.84, 

3365861.30; 607825.42, 3365837.85; 

607840.50, 3365813.42; 607854.02, 

3365788.08; 607865.91, 3365761.94; 

607876.14, 3365735.11; 607884.67, 

3365707.70; 607891.46, 3365679.79; 

607896.48, 3365651.52; 607899.72, 

3365622.99; 607901.16, 3365594.31; 

607900.79, 3365565.60; 607898.63, 

3365536.97; 607894.67, 3365508.53; 

607888.93, 3365480.39; 607881.44, 

3365452.67; 607872.22, 3365425.48; 

607861.31, 3365398.91; 607848.76, 

3365373.09; 607834.61, 3365348.10; 

607818.91, 3365324.06; 607801.74, 

3365301.04; 607783.16, 3365279.15; 

607763.24, 3365258.47; 607742.06, 

3365239.08; 607719.71, 3365221.06; 

607696.26, 3365204.48; 607671.83, 

3365189.40; 607646.49, 3365175.88; 

607620.36, 3365163.99; 607593.53, 

3365153.76; 607566.11, 3365145.23; 

607538.21, 3365138.44; 607509.93, 

3365133.42; 607481.40, 3365130.18; 

607452.72, 3365128.74; 607424.01, 

3365129.11; 607395.38, 3365131.27; 

607366.94, 3365135.23; 607338.80, 

3365140.97; 607311.08, 3365148.46; 

607283.89, 3365157.68; 607257.33, 

3365168.59; 607231.50, 3365181.14; 

607206.52, 3365195.29; 607182.47, 

3365210.99; 607159.45, 3365228.16; 

607137.56, 3365246.74; 607116.88, 

3365266.66; 607097.49, 3365287.84; 

607079.47, 3365310.19; 607062.89, 

3365333.64; 607047.81, 3365358.07; 

607034.30, 3365383.41; 607022.40, 

3365409.54; 607012.17, 3365436.37; 

607003.64, 3365463.79; 606996.85, 

3365491.69; 606991.83, 3365519.97; 

606988.59, 3365548.50; 606987.15, 

3365577.18; 606987.52, 3365605.89; 

606989.68, 3365634.52; 606993.64, 

3365662.96; 606999.38, 3365691.10; 

607006.87, 3365718.82; 607016.09, 

3365746.01; 607027.00, 3365772.57; 

607039.55, 3365798.40; 607053.70, 

3365823.38; 607069.40, 3365847.43; 

607086.57, 3365870.45; 607105.15, 

3365892.34; 607125.07, 3365913.02; 

607146.25, 3365932.41; 607168.60, 

3365950.43; 607192.05, 3365967.01; 

607216.48, 3365982.09; 607241.82, 

3365995.60; 607267.95, 3366007.50; 

607294.78, 3366017.73; 607322.20, 

3366026.26; 607350.10, 3366033.05; 

607378.38, 3366038.07; 607406.91, 

3366041.31; 607435.59, 3366042.75. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS–6, 

Subunit B is provided at paragraph 

(6)(ix)(B) of this entry. 

(viii) Unit RFS–7, Subunit A—Holmes 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle map Bonifay, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 630429.91, 3415116.39; 630422.24, 

3415573.43; 630450.95, 3415573.01; 

630479.58, 3415570.79; 630508.01, 

3415566.77; 630536.14, 3415560.98; 

630563.84, 3415553.43; 630591.02, 

3415544.16; 630617.56, 3415533.20; 

630643.36, 3415520.59; 630668.32, 

3415506.39; 630692.34, 3415490.65; 

630715.32, 3415473.44; 630737.18, 

3415454.81; 630757.82, 3415434.85; 

630777.17, 3415413.63; 630795.15, 

3415391.24; 630811.68, 3415367.76; 

630826.71, 3415343.29; 630840.18, 

3415317.93; 630852.02, 3415291.77; 

630862.20, 3415264.92; 630870.67, 

3415237.48; 630877.41, 3415209.57; 

630882.38, 3415181.28; 630885.56, 

3415152.74; 630886.94, 3415124.06; 

630886.52, 3415095.35; 630884.30, 

3415066.72; 630880.28, 3415038.28; 

630874.49, 3415010.16; 630866.94, 

3414982.45; 630857.67, 3414955.27; 

630846.71, 3414928.73; 630834.11, 

3414902.93; 630819.91, 3414877.97; 

630804.17, 3414853.95; 630786.95, 

3414830.97; 630768.32, 3414809.11; 

630748.36, 3414788.47; 630727.15, 

3414769.12; 630704.75, 3414751.14; 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6766 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

630681.28, 3414734.60; 630656.81, 

3414719.57; 630631.45, 3414706.11; 

630605.29, 3414694.26; 630578.44, 

3414684.08; 630551.00, 3414675.61; 

630523.09, 3414668.88; 630494.81, 

3414663.91; 630466.27, 3414660.73; 

630437.59, 3414659.34; 630408.87, 

3414659.76; 630380.24, 3414661.99; 

630351.81, 3414666.00; 630323.69, 

3414671.79; 630295.98, 3414679.34; 

630268.80, 3414688.61; 630242.26, 

3414699.58; 630216.46, 3414712.18; 

630191.50, 3414726.38; 630167.49, 

3414742.12; 630144.51, 3414759.34; 

630122.65, 3414777.97; 630102.01, 

3414797.93; 630082.66, 3414819.15; 

630064.68, 3414841.54; 630048.14, 

3414865.01; 630033.11, 3414889.48; 

630019.65, 3414914.85; 630007.80, 

3414941.01; 629997.63, 3414967.86; 

629989.15, 3414995.29; 629982.42, 

3415023.21; 629977.45, 3415051.49; 

629974.27, 3415080.03; 629972.89, 

3415108.72; 629973.31, 3415137.43; 

629975.53, 3415166.06; 629979.54, 

3415194.49; 629985.34, 3415222.62; 

629992.88, 3415250.32; 630002.16, 

3415277.50; 630013.12, 3415304.04; 

630025.72, 3415329.85; 630039.92, 

3415354.81; 630055.66, 3415378.82; 

630072.88, 3415401.81; 630091.50, 

3415423.66; 630111.46, 3415444.31; 

630132.68, 3415463.65; 630155.07, 

3415481.63; 630178.55, 3415498.17; 

630203.02, 3415513.20; 630228.38, 

3415526.67; 630254.54, 3415538.51; 

630281.39, 3415548.69; 630308.82, 

3415557.16; 630336.74, 3415563.90; 

630365.02, 3415568.87; 630393.56, 

3415572.05; 630422.24, 3415573.43. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS–7, 

Subunit A is provided at paragraph 

(6)(ix)(B) of this entry. 

(ix) Unit RFS–7, Subunit B— 

Washington County, Florida. From 

USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Millers 

Ferry, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 618603.41, 3387429.45; 618699.68, 

3387966.18; 618708.26, 3387969.49; 

618723.71, 3387970.50; 618726.33, 

3387965.00; 618725.78, 3387937.80; 

618728.76, 3387918.09; 618732.40, 

3387896.55; 618738.22, 3387886.81; 

618755.97, 3387870.57; 618776.73, 

3387857.50; 618803.06, 3387844.57; 

618839.32, 3387830.66; 618872.53, 

3387815.43; 618904.43, 3387802.63; 

618918.85, 3387795.58; 618926.43, 

3387789.59; 618930.96, 3387781.67; 

618931.79, 3387748.94; 618930.13, 

3387716.76; 618932.43, 3387674.79; 

618932.53, 3387646.37; 618934.03, 

3387611.79; 618948.87, 3387588.07; 

618962.97, 3387569.26; 618980.28, 

3387545.60; 618995.92, 3387515.09; 

619007.01, 3387492.50; 619018.24, 

3387464.98; 619025.65, 3387441.06; 

619035.64, 3387413.50; 619042.95, 

3387393.91; 619052.14, 3387373.13; 

619059.11, 3387348.17; 619055.09, 

3387319.74; 619049.30, 3387291.61; 

619041.75, 3387263.91; 619032.48, 

3387236.73; 619021.51, 3387210.19; 

619008.91, 3387184.39; 618994.70, 

3387159.43; 618978.96, 3387135.42; 

618961.74, 3387112.44; 618943.12, 

3387090.58; 618923.15, 3387069.94; 

618901.93, 3387050.59; 618879.54, 

3387032.62; 618856.06, 3387016.08; 

618831.60, 3387001.05; 618806.23, 

3386987.59; 618780.07, 3386975.75; 

618753.22, 3386965.57; 618725.78, 

3386957.10; 618697.87, 3386950.37; 

618669.59, 3386945.41; 618641.05, 

3386942.23; 618612.37, 3386940.85; 

618583.65, 3386941.27; 618555.02, 

3386943.49; 618526.59, 3386947.51; 

618498.47, 3386953.31; 618470.76, 

3386960.86; 618443.59, 3386970.13; 

618417.05, 3386981.10; 618391.25, 

3386993.70; 618366.29, 3387007.91; 

618342.28, 3387023.65; 618319.30, 

3387040.87; 618297.44, 3387059.49; 

618276.80, 3387079.46; 618257.46, 

3387100.68; 618239.48, 3387123.07; 

618222.95, 3387146.55; 618207.92, 

3387171.02; 618194.46, 3387196.38; 

618182.61, 3387222.54; 618172.44, 

3387249.39; 618163.97, 3387276.83; 

618157.24, 3387304.75; 618152.27, 

3387333.03; 618149.09, 3387361.57; 

618147.71, 3387390.25; 618148.13, 

3387418.97; 618150.36, 3387447.59; 

618154.38, 3387476.03; 618160.17, 

3387504.15; 618167.72, 3387531.86; 

618177.00, 3387559.03; 618187.96, 

3387585.58; 618200.57, 3387611.37; 

618214.77, 3387636.33; 618230.51, 

3387660.35; 618247.73, 3387683.33; 

618266.36, 3387705.18; 618286.32, 

3387725.82; 618307.54, 3387745.17; 

618329.93, 3387763.15; 618353.41, 

3387779.68; 618377.88, 3387794.71; 

618403.24, 3387808.17; 618429.40, 

3387820.02; 618456.25, 3387830.19; 

618483.69, 3387838.66; 618511.60, 

3387845.39; 618552.33, 3387867.90; 

618598.24, 3387912.94; 618635.11, 

3387948.48; 618647.90, 3387956.84; 

618666.90, 3387964.74; 618689.14, 

3387966.53; 618699.68, 3387966.18. 

(B) Note: Map of Units RFS–6 and 

RFS–7 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6767 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER10FE09.008</GPH>
6768 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(x) Unit RFS–8, Subunit A—Jackson 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

quadrangle map Cottondale West, 

Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 652825.49, 3407068.83; 652825.48, 

3407068.83; 653303.68, 3406605.29; 

653038.02, 3406583.61; 653039.18, 

3406691.92; 653028.57, 3406721.18; 

653006.55, 3406734.40; 652986.39, 

3406751.60; 652981.54, 3406786.91; 

652980.43, 3406830.19; 652979.67, 

3406859.70; 652965.63, 3406869.19; 

652941.78, 3406876.45; 652916.11, 

3406877.76; 652884.59, 3406876.95; 

652859.18, 3406868.42; 652831.89, 

3406855.91; 652800.52, 3406849.20; 

652767.02, 3406848.34; 652747.17, 

3406853.74; 652732.87, 3406873.06; 

652724.33, 3406898.44; 652743.83, 

3406906.81; 652763.39, 3406913.22; 

652758.74, 3406940.66; 652753.99, 

3406972.04; 652760.86, 3407011.59; 

652764.09, 3407039.23; 652761.57, 

3407060.82; 652749.49, 3407070.36; 

652725.65, 3407077.62; 652709.68, 

3407085.09; 652701.20, 3407108.49; 

652698.57, 3407134.02; 652696.09, 

3407153.64; 652674.12, 3407164.89; 

652656.23, 3407170.34; 652642.04, 

3407185.72; 652620.14, 3407175.05; 

652594.55, 3407165.80; 652583.46, 

3407159.57; 652578.33, 3407152.82; 

652573.28, 3407143.44; 652569.58, 

3407132.77; 652565.24, 3407121.42; 

652555.67, 3407107.29; 652545.45, 

3407092.48; 652535.85, 3407079.68; 

652526.16, 3407070.17; 652517.58, 

3407069.29; 652507.43, 3407077.62; 

652495.88, 3407089.23; 652486.90, 

3407103.54; 652483.22, 3407117.99; 

652480.80, 3407135.12; 652478.24, 

3407157.53; 652480.37, 3407177.42; 

652480.51, 3407197.92; 652475.78, 

3407201.76; 652465.72, 3407206.79; 

652458.25, 3407213.87; 652449.33, 

3407226.21; 652438.05, 3407227.24; 

652428.85, 3407224.36; 652417.75, 

3407218.12; 652411.37, 3407208.70; 

652407.64, 3407199.35; 652404.20, 

3407178.77; 652402.01, 3407160.86; 

652397.94, 3407138.94; 652395.00, 

3407124.32; 652386.76, 3407110.23; 

652373.71, 3407102.62; 652360.44, 

3407103.60; 652343.53, 3407117.72; 

652333.43, 3407124.07; 652322.15, 

3407125.10; 652314.14, 3407127.54; 

652305.95, 3407137.25; 652296.58, 

3407140.97; 652287.20, 3407145.36; 

652274.56, 3407147.68; 652268.06, 

3407142.89; 652261.53, 3407139.41; 

652255.03, 3407134.62; 652248.60, 

3407127.18; 652243.50, 3407119.78; 

652238.44, 3407110.39; 652237.44, 

3407097.81; 652241.12, 3407083.36; 

652242.82, 3407068.86; 652245.24, 

3407051.73; 652244.24, 3407039.14; 

652236.01, 3407024.39; 652221.05, 

3407014.09; 652203.25, 3407010.99; 

652190.56, 3407015.29; 652182.47, 

3407021.03; 652175.50, 3407034.74; 

652172.53, 3407047.22; 652173.53, 

3407059.81; 652170.75, 3407065.03; 

652164.64, 3407070.82; 652155.26, 

3407075.21; 652145.32, 3407075.61; 

652133.44, 3407073.99; 652119.02, 

3407068.33; 652106.60, 3407062.06; 

652100.97, 3407049.36; 652097.32, 

3407036.70; 652077.38, 3407039.50; 

652052.56, 3407052.08; 652042.52, 

3407056.45; 652034.12, 3407074.09; 

652048.98, 3407088.35; 652061.11, 

3407105.85; 652085.32, 3407117.05; 

652106.16, 3407130.80; 652105.19, 

3407142.68; 652106.02, 3407161.87; 

652112.91, 3407177.25; 652135.31, 

3407181.79; 652182.83, 3407187.64; 

652215.86, 3407190.47; 652257.41, 

3407196.82; 652295.04, 3407201.09; 

652314.35, 3407205.65; 652308.49, 

3407218.63; 652292.89, 3407233.43; 

652266.52, 3407254.57; 652238.70, 

3407280.96; 652220.19, 3407305.61; 

652212.44, 3407323.92; 652210.01, 

3407341.05; 652209.77, 3407350.30; 

652210.11, 3407362.87; 652213.26, 

3407375.54; 652299.80, 3407383.66; 

652374.80, 3407395.52; 652472.45, 

3407408.60; 652594.12, 3407426.43; 

652663.66, 3407439.95; 652719.80, 

3407445.35; 652756.73, 3407450.93; 

652822.76, 3407457.91; 652861.06, 

3407462.20; 652917.52, 3407467.64; 

652905.20, 3407362.30; 652901.54, 

3407298.74; 652968.31, 3407276.65; 

653003.40, 3407251.11; 653001.57, 

3407219.33; 652994.98, 3407166.27; 

653006.18, 3407142.76; 653022.74, 

3407116.74; 653023.96, 3407069.17; 

653009.23, 3407023.84; 653002.04, 

3406994.56; 653028.78, 3406984.67; 

653046.56, 3407014.22; 653069.77, 

3407038.61; 653101.19, 3407052.64; 

653145.98, 3407061.72; 653188.39, 

3407060.16; 653209.09, 3407079.20; 

653227.21, 3407095.54; 653233.05, 

3407074.53; 653231.22, 3407042.75; 

653237.12, 3407019.10; 653258.77, 

3407001.15; 653290.87, 3406988.75; 

653294.33, 3406957.10; 653292.43, 

3406927.97; 653290.39, 3406904.11; 

653290.87, 3406885.61; 653306.88, 

3406880.74; 653330.43, 3406891.92; 

653353.91, 3406905.74; 653377.80, 

3406903.71; 653389.13, 3406874.91; 

653395.38, 3406838.05; 653396.39, 

3406798.41; 653397.07, 3406771.98; 

653400.40, 3406745.62; 653413.97, 

3406732.75; 653440.50, 3406730.79; 

653454.01, 3406720.56; 653454.42, 

3406704.70; 653438.67, 3406699.01; 

653411.87, 3406711.54; 653393.20, 

3406716.35; 653374.68, 3406715.88; 

653358.93, 3406710.18; 653341.08, 

3406683.28; 653331.11, 3406659.23; 

653321.06, 3406637.81; 653308.37, 

3406616.33; 653303.68, 3406605.29. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS–8, 

Subunit A is provided at paragraph 

(6)(xiv)(B) of this entry. 

(xi) Unit RFS–8, Subunit B—Jackson 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle map Oakdale, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 674995.60, 3401690.28; 673875.85, 

3402158.93; 674341.17, 3402164.28; 

674675.84, 3402154.41; 674910.48, 

3402162.13; 675034.90, 3402087.99; 

675083.93, 3402061.49; 675233.86, 

3401974.12; 675401.89, 3401877.97; 

675485.18, 3401832.51; 675531.62, 

3401803.30; 675583.62, 3401764.31; 

675781.28, 3401546.61; 675851.43, 

3401471.73; 675878.14, 3401437.38; 

675932.68, 3401376.64; 675959.66, 

3401349.36; 675970.87, 3401333.99; 

675981.97, 3401314.44; 676115.36, 

3401200.87; 676086.59, 3401161.12; 

676052.69, 3401114.62; 676041.90, 

3401096.49; 676016.12, 3401069.38; 

675998.03, 3401051.73; 675964.86, 

3401028.39; 675934.93, 3401007.79; 

675918.10, 3400992.81; 675908.38, 

3400984.62; 675897.49, 3400970.46; 

675889.97, 3400953.73; 675879.31, 

3400879.41; 675844.53, 3400893.06; 

675327.40, 3401121.69; 674861.39, 

3401328.81; 674684.03, 3401401.59; 

674391.31, 3401530.89; 673876.29, 

3401753.54; 673877.85, 3402081.41; 

673875.85, 3402158.93. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS–8, 

Subunit B is provided at paragraph 

(6)(xiv)(B) of this entry. 

(xii) Unit RFS–8, Subunit C—Jackson 

County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle map Cypress, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 683829.73, 3393074.70; 684023.32, 

3393574.80; 684052.04, 3393574.38; 

684080.68, 3393572.16; 684109.12, 

3393568.14; 684137.25, 3393562.34; 

684164.96, 3393554.79; 684192.15, 

3393545.52; 684218.69, 3393534.55; 

684244.50, 3393521.94; 684269.46, 

3393507.74; 684293.49, 3393491.99; 

684316.47, 3393474.77; 684338.33, 

3393456.14; 684358.98, 3393436.17; 

684378.33, 3393414.95; 684396.32, 

3393392.55; 684412.86, 3393369.07; 

684427.89, 3393344.60; 684441.36, 

3393319.23; 684453.20, 3393293.06; 

684463.38, 3393266.20; 684471.86, 

3393238.76; 684478.59, 3393210.84; 

684483.56, 3393182.55; 684486.74, 

3393154.00; 684488.12, 3393125.31; 

684487.70, 3393096.59; 684485.48, 

3393067.96; 684481.46, 3393039.52; 

684475.66, 3393011.38; 684468.11, 

3392983.67; 684458.84, 3392956.49; 

684447.87, 3392929.94; 684435.27, 

3392904.13; 684421.06, 3392879.17; 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6769 

684405.32, 3392855.15; 684388.09, 

3392832.16; 684369.46, 3392810.30; 

684349.50, 3392789.65; 684328.27, 

3392770.30; 684305.87, 3392752.32; 

684282.39, 3392735.78; 684257.92, 

3392720.75; 684232.55, 3392707.28; 

684206.38, 3392695.43; 684179.52, 

3392685.25; 684152.08, 3392676.78; 

684124.16, 3392670.04; 684095.87, 

3392665.08; 684067.32, 3392661.89; 

684038.63, 3392660.51; 684009.91, 

3392660.93; 683981.28, 3392663.16; 

683966.02, 3392656.75; 683947.05, 

3392647.66; 683923.43, 3392639.12; 

683903.85, 3392628.04; 683886.86, 

3392619.00; 683867.12, 3392613.87; 

683843.82, 3392618.55; 683819.20, 

3392623.21; 683789.11, 3392634.33; 

683770.46, 3392638.47; 683744.30, 

3392651.02; 683720.12, 3392664.28; 

683706.10, 3392668.55; 683685.47, 

3392672.64; 683658.43, 3392667.97; 

683632.03, 3392664.65; 683606.95, 

3392661.36; 683585.89, 3392656.18; 

683542.11, 3392633.24; 683512.11, 

3392615.27; 683479.46, 3392597.24; 

683450.00, 3392583.92; 683423.91, 

3392568.70; 683385.42, 3392545.89; 

683371.14, 3392534.94; 683348.35, 

3392519.81; 683332.69, 3392510.81; 

683315.62, 3392505.08; 683294.59, 

3392498.59; 683272.28, 3392490.74; 

683253.15, 3392487.60; 683203.24, 

3392496.89; 683207.64, 3392582.95; 

683209.99, 3392696.72; 683212.45, 

3392729.84; 683218.34, 3392783.54; 

683218.66, 3392796.77; 683214.15, 

3392817.81; 683194.50, 3392886.06; 

683182.83, 3392927.40; 683174.68, 

3392960.91; 683171.34, 3392987.93; 

683171.38, 3393011.73; 683174.93, 

3393028.35; 683181.19, 3393042.39; 

683179.64, 3393050.95; 683179.13, 

3393070.77; 683177.70, 3393100.48; 

683176.50, 3393146.73; 683179.16, 

3393171.92; 683183.14, 3393197.15; 

683188.54, 3393219.10; 683190.03, 

3393238.31; 683189.67, 3393252.19; 

683214.05, 3393256.78; 683227.92, 

3393258.46; 683266.03, 3393270.03; 

683309.50, 3393279.08; 683347.79, 

3393284.04; 683367.66, 3393283.89; 

683389.34, 3393286.52; 683469.22, 

3393300.40; 683524.08, 3393304.46; 

683580.93, 3393308.57; 683593.71, 

3393300.97; 683608.59, 3393292.07; 

683614.08, 3393305.37; 683626.69, 

3393331.18; 683640.90, 3393356.14; 

683656.64, 3393380.17; 683673.86, 

3393403.15; 683692.49, 3393425.01; 

683712.46, 3393445.66; 683733.68, 

3393465.01; 683756.08, 3393482.99; 

683779.56, 3393499.53; 683804.04, 

3393514.57; 683829.41, 3393528.03; 

683855.57, 3393539.88; 683882.43, 

3393550.06; 683909.88, 3393558.54; 

683937.80, 3393565.27; 683966.09, 

3393570.24; 683994.63, 3393573.42; 

684023.32, 3393574.80. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS–8, 

Subunit C is provided at paragraph 

(6)(xiv)(B) of this entry. 

(xiii) Unit RFS–9, Subunit A— 

Calhoun County, Florida. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Broad 

Branch, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 664818.75, 3351879.40; 664810.75, 

3352336.50; 664839.47, 3352336.10; 

664868.11, 3352333.90; 664896.55, 

3352329.90; 664924.68, 3352324.13; 

664952.40, 3352316.60; 664979.59, 

3352307.34; 665006.14, 3352296.40; 

665031.95, 3352283.81; 665056.93, 

3352269.63; 665080.96, 3352253.90; 

665103.96, 3352236.70; 665125.83, 

3352218.08; 665146.49, 3352198.13; 

665165.86, 3352176.93; 665183.85, 

3352154.54; 665200.41, 3352131.08; 

665215.46, 3352106.61; 665228.94, 

3352081.26; 665240.81, 3352055.10; 

665251.01, 3352028.25; 665259.50, 

3352000.82; 665266.26, 3351972.90; 

665271.25, 3351944.62; 665274.45, 

3351916.08; 665275.85, 3351887.39; 

665275.45, 3351858.67; 665273.25, 

3351830.04; 665269.26, 3351801.60; 

665263.48, 3351773.46; 665255.95, 

3351745.75; 665246.70, 3351718.56; 

665235.75, 3351692.00; 665223.16, 

3351666.19; 665208.98, 3351641.22; 

665193.25, 3351617.18; 665176.05, 

3351594.19; 665157.44, 3351572.31; 

665137.49, 3351551.65; 665116.28, 

3351532.29; 665093.90, 3351514.29; 

665070.43, 3351497.73; 665045.97, 

3351482.68; 665020.61, 3351469.20; 

664994.45, 3351457.33; 664967.61, 

3351447.13; 664940.17, 3351438.64; 

664912.26, 3351431.89; 664883.97, 

3351426.90; 664855.43, 3351423.70; 

664826.74, 3351422.29; 664798.03, 

3351422.69; 664769.39, 3351424.89; 

664740.95, 3351428.89; 664712.82, 

3351434.66; 664685.10, 3351442.19; 

664657.91, 3351451.45; 664631.36, 

3351462.39; 664605.54, 3351474.98; 

664580.57, 3351489.17; 664556.54, 

3351504.89; 664533.54, 3351522.09; 

664511.67, 3351540.71; 664491.01, 

3351560.66; 664471.64, 3351581.87; 

664453.64, 3351604.25; 664437.09, 

3351627.72; 664422.04, 3351652.18; 

664408.55, 3351677.53; 664396.69, 

3351703.69; 664386.49, 3351730.54; 

664377.99, 3351757.97; 664371.24, 

3351785.89; 664366.25, 3351814.17; 

664363.05, 3351842.71; 664361.65, 

3351871.40; 664362.05, 3351900.12; 

664364.25, 3351928.75; 664368.24, 

3351957.19; 664374.02, 3351985.33; 

664381.55, 3352013.04; 664390.80, 

3352040.23; 664401.74, 3352066.79; 

664414.33, 3352092.60; 664428.52, 

3352117.57; 664444.24, 3352141.60; 

664461.45, 3352164.60; 664480.06, 

3352186.47; 664500.01, 3352207.14; 

664521.22, 3352226.50; 664543.60, 

3352244.50; 664567.07, 3352261.06; 

664591.53, 3352276.11; 664616.89, 

3352289.59; 664643.04, 3352301.46; 

664669.89, 3352311.66; 664697.33, 

3352320.15; 664725.24, 3352326.90; 

664753.53, 3352331.89; 664782.07, 

3352335.09; 664810.75, 3352336.50. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS–9, 

Subunit A is provided at paragraph 

(6)(xiv)(B) of this entry. 

(xiv) Unit RFS–9, Subunit B— 

Calhoun County, Florida. From USGS 

1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Dead 

Lake, Florida. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 677786.48, 3346665.69; 676322.21, 

3345710.86; 676293.52, 3345709.49; 

676264.80, 3345709.91; 676236.17, 

3345712.14; 676207.73, 3345716.17; 

676179.60, 3345721.97; 676151.89, 

3345729.52; 676124.71, 3345738.80; 

676098.16, 3345749.77; 676072.36, 

3345762.39; 676047.40, 3345776.60; 

676023.38, 3345792.34; 676000.40, 

3345809.57; 675978.54, 3345828.20; 

675957.90, 3345848.17; 675938.55, 

3345869.40; 675920.57, 3345891.80; 

675904.04, 3345915.28; 675889.01, 

3345939.76; 675875.55, 3345965.13; 

675863.71, 3345991.30; 675853.53, 

3346018.16; 675845.07, 3346045.60; 

675838.34, 3346073.52; 675833.38, 

3346101.81; 675830.20, 3346130.36; 

675828.82, 3346159.05; 675829.25, 

3346187.76; 675831.48, 3346216.40; 

675835.50, 3346244.84; 675841.31, 

3346272.97; 675848.86, 3346300.67; 

675858.14, 3346327.85; 675869.11, 

3346354.40; 675881.73, 3346380.20; 

675895.94, 3346405.16; 675911.69, 

3346429.18; 675928.91, 3346452.16; 

675947.55, 3346474.02; 675967.52, 

3346494.66; 675988.75, 3346514.01; 

676011.15, 3346531.98; 676034.63, 

3346548.52; 676059.11, 3346563.55; 

676084.48, 3346577.01; 676110.65, 

3346588.85; 676137.51, 3346599.02; 

679138.53, 3347597.18; 679165.98, 

3347605.65; 679193.90, 3347612.37; 

679222.19, 3347617.34; 679250.74, 

3347620.51; 679279.43, 3347621.89; 

679308.15, 3347621.46; 679336.78, 

3347619.23; 679365.22, 3347615.21; 

679393.35, 3347609.41; 679421.06, 

3347601.85; 679448.25, 3347592.57; 

679474.79, 3347581.60; 679500.60, 

3347568.99; 679525.56, 3347554.78; 

679549.58, 3347539.03; 679572.56, 

3347521.81; 679594.42, 3347503.17; 

679615.06, 3347483.20; 679634.41, 

3347461.97; 679652.39, 3347439.57; 

679668.92, 3347416.09; 679683.95, 

3347391.61; 679697.41, 3347366.24; 

679709.25, 3347340.07; 679719.43, 

3347313.22; 679727.89, 3347285.77; 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
6770 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

679734.62, 3347257.85; 679739.58, 

3347229.56; 679742.76, 3347201.01; 

679744.14, 3347172.32; 679743.71, 

3347143.61; 679741.48, 3347114.97; 

679737.46, 3347086.53; 679731.66, 

3347058.40; 679724.10, 3347030.69; 

679714.82, 3347003.51; 679703.85, 

3346976.97; 679691.23, 3346951.16; 

679677.02, 3346926.20; 679661.27, 

3346902.19; 679644.05, 3346879.20; 

679625.41, 3346857.35; 679605.44, 

3346836.70; 679584.21, 3346817.36; 

679561.81, 3346799.38; 679538.33, 

3346782.84; 679513.85, 3346767.82; 

679488.47, 3346754.36; 679462.31, 

3346742.52; 679435.45, 3346732.34; 

676434.42, 3345734.20; 676406.97, 

3345725.73; 676379.05, 3345719.00; 

676350.76, 3345714.04; 676322.21, 

3345710.86. 

(B) Note: Map of Units RFS–8 and 

RFS–9 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6771 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER10FE09.009</GPH>
6772 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

(7) Reticulated flatwood salamander— 

Baker and Miller Counties, Georgia. 

(i) Unit RFS–10, Subunit A—Miller 

County, Georgia. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle map Donalsonville NE, 

Georgia. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 709773.06, 3456290.97; 709801.78, 

3456290.64; 709830.43, 3456288.51; 

709858.89, 3456284.58; 709887.04, 

3456278.87; 709914.78, 3456271.41; 

709942.00, 3456262.22; 709968.58, 

3456251.34; 709994.43, 3456238.81; 

710019.45, 3456224.68; 710043.52, 

3456209.01; 710066.57, 3456191.86; 

710088.49, 3456173.30; 710109.20, 

3456153.39; 710128.62, 3456132.23; 

710146.68, 3456109.89; 710163.30, 

3456086.45; 710178.41, 3456062.02; 

710191.96, 3456036.69; 710203.89, 

3456010.56; 710214.16, 3455983.73; 

710222.72, 3455956.31; 710229.54, 

3455928.41; 710234.60, 3455900.13; 

710237.88, 3455871.59; 710239.35, 

3455842.91; 710239.02, 3455814.18; 

710236.89, 3455785.53; 710232.96, 

3455757.08; 710227.25, 3455728.92; 

710219.79, 3455701.18; 710210.60, 

3455673.97; 710199.72, 3455647.38; 

710187.19, 3455621.53; 710173.06, 

3455596.52; 710157.39, 3455572.44; 

710140.24, 3455549.40; 710121.68, 

3455527.48; 710101.77, 3455506.76; 

710080.61, 3455487.34; 710058.27, 

3455469.29; 710034.83, 3455452.67; 

710010.40, 3455437.56; 709985.07, 

3455424.01; 709958.94, 3455412.08; 

709932.11, 3455401.81; 709904.69, 

3455393.25; 709876.79, 3455386.42; 

709848.51, 3455381.36; 709819.97, 

3455378.09; 709791.29, 3455376.62; 

709762.56, 3455376.95; 709733.91, 

3455379.08; 709705.46, 3455383.01; 

709677.30, 3455388.71; 709649.56, 

3455396.18; 709622.35, 3455405.37; 

709595.76, 3455416.25; 709569.91, 

3455428.78; 709544.90, 3455442.90; 

709520.82, 3455458.57; 709497.78, 

3455475.73; 709475.86, 3455494.29; 

709455.15, 3455514.19; 709435.72, 

3455535.36; 709417.67, 3455557.70; 

709401.05, 3455581.13; 709385.94, 

3455605.56; 709372.39, 3455630.89; 

709360.46, 3455657.02; 709350.19, 

3455683.85; 709341.63, 3455711.27; 

709334.80, 3455739.18; 709329.75, 

3455767.45; 709326.47, 3455795.99; 

709325.00, 3455824.68; 709325.33, 

3455853.40; 709327.46, 3455882.05; 

709331.39, 3455910.51; 709337.10, 

3455938.66; 709344.56, 3455966.40; 

709353.75, 3455993.62; 709364.63, 

3456020.20; 709377.16, 3456046.05; 

709391.29, 3456071.07; 709406.96, 

3456095.14; 709424.11, 3456118.19; 

709442.67, 3456140.11; 709462.57, 

3456160.82; 709483.74, 3456180.24; 

709506.08, 3456198.30; 709529.51, 

3456214.92; 709553.94, 3456230.03; 

709579.27, 3456243.58; 709605.40, 

3456255.51; 709632.23, 3456265.78; 

709659.65, 3456274.34; 709687.56, 

3456281.16; 709715.83, 3456286.22; 

709744.37, 3456289.49; 709773.06, 

3456290.97. 

(B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS–10, 

Subunit A is provided at paragraph 

(7)(ii)(B) of this entry. 

(ii) Unit RFS–10, Subunit B—Baker 

County, Georgia. From USGS 1:24,000 

scale quadrangle map Bethany, Georgia. 

(A) Land bounded by the following 

UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates (E, 

N): 734799.11, 3462120.86; 735025.60, 

3462958.51; 735075.16, 3462764.67; 

735444.38, 3461469.20; 735412.19, 

3461400.33; 735420.28, 3461310.28; 

735420.28, 3461223.05; 735430.58, 

3461136.30; 735479.60, 3461141.39; 

735578.13, 3461132.68; 735613.43, 

3461091.58; 735650.82, 3461010.58; 

735669.51, 3460923.35; 735703.92, 

3460811.06; 735756.74, 3460736.42; 

735800.35, 3460649.19; 735744.28, 

3460624.27; 735432.74, 3460624.27; 

735021.51, 3460618.04; 735040.20, 

3460767.58; 734952.97, 3460823.66; 

734840.82, 3460861.04; 734812.02, 

3460938.41; 734541.74, 3461658.58; 

734504.36, 3461783.19; 734301.81, 

3462565.34; 734165.92, 3462612.37; 

734048.55, 3462652.99; 733925.73, 

3462646.35; 733818.44, 3462640.54; 

733818.98, 3462680.42; 733831.44, 

3462724.03; 733831.91, 3462789.15; 

733887.18, 3462970.92; 733929.82, 

3463111.13; 733981.10, 3463244.98; 

734029.39, 3463371.05; 734111.12, 

3463466.09; 734161.67, 3463534.03; 

734214.05, 3463602.19; 734302.98, 

3463595.69; 734405.69, 3463535.78; 

734460.75, 3463434.34; 734585.36, 

3463428.11; 734697.51, 3463384.49; 

734766.02, 3463372.96; 734844.43, 

3463268.82; 734936.26, 3463146.86; 

735025.60, 3462958.51. 

(B) Note: Map of Unit RFS–10 follows: 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 6773 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2ER10FE09.010</GPH>
6774 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 10, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * Dated: January 29, 2009. 

Jane Lyder, 

Assistant Deputy Secretary, Department of 

the Interior. 

[FR Doc. E9–2403 Filed 2–9–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


erowe on PROD1PC63 with RULES_2