[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 10, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6700-6774]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-2403]



[[Page 6699]]

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

Part II





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



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

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

[[Page 6700]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R4-ES-2008-0082; MO 9921050083-B2]
RIN 1018-AU85


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), finalize the 
listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), of 
the currently threatened flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) 
into two distinct species: Frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma 
cingulatum) and reticulated flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma bishopi) 
due to a recognized taxonomic reclassification; determine endangered 
status for the reticulated flatwoods salamander; retain threatened 
status for the frosted flatwoods salamander; and designate critical 
habitat for the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander. In total, approximately 27,423 acres (ac) (11,100 
hectares (ha)) in 35 units or subunits fall within the boundaries of 
the critical habitat designation; 22,970 ac (9,297 ha) of critical 
habitat is designated for the frosted flatwoods salamander and 4,453 ac 
(1,803 ha) for the reticulated flatwoods salamander. This area is a 
reduction of 3,205 ac (977 ha) from the proposed designation; 162 ac 
(66 ha) less for the frosted flatwoods salamander and 3,043 ac (928 ha) 
less for the reticulated flatwoods salamander. The critical habitat is 
located in Baker, Calhoun, Franklin, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, 
Liberty, Santa Rosa, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington Counties in 
Florida; Baker and Miller Counties in Georgia; and Berkeley, 
Charleston, and Jasper Counties in South Carolina.

DATES: This rule becomes effective on March 12, 2009.

ADDRESSES: This final rule and final economic analysis are available on 
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Supporting documentation we 
used in preparing this final rule is available for public inspection, 
by appointment, during normal business hours, at U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office, 6578 Dogwood View 
Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray Aycock, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View 
Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; telephone: 601-321-1122; facsimile: 601-
965-4340. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), 
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document consists of: (1) A final rule 
to change the listing of the currently threatened flatwoods salamander 
(Ambystoma cingulatum) to frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma 
cingulatum) and reticulated flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma bishopi) 
(the frosted flatwoods salamander will continue to be listed as 
threatened and the reticulated flatwoods salamander is listed as 
endangered); and (2) final critical habitat designations for each 
species.

Previous Federal Actions

    The flatwoods salamander was listed as threatened on April 1, 1999 
(64 FR 15691). At that time, we found that designation of critical 
habitat for the flatwoods salamander was not prudent because such 
designation would not be beneficial and may increase threats to the 
species. On April 1, 2005, Center for Biological Diversity, Wild South, 
and Florida Biodiversity Project filed a lawsuit against the Secretary 
of the Interior alleging failure to designate critical habitat for the 
flatwoods salamander. In a court-approved settlement agreement, we 
agreed to re-evaluate the need for critical habitat for the species 
and, if prudent, submit a proposed designation of critical habitat to 
the Federal Register by January 30, 2007, and submit a final critical 
habitat rule for publication in the Federal Register by January 30, 
2008. We published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat for 
the flatwoods salamander in the Federal Register on February 7, 2007 
(72 FR 5856). After that proposed rule published, new information 
became available on its taxonomic classification and additional threats 
to occupied habitat that necessitated a reevaluation of the proposed 
rule. On January 25, 2008, the court-approved settlement agreement was 
modified to require that a revised proposed critical habitat 
designation for the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander be submitted for publication in the Federal 
Register on or before July 30, 2008, with the final critical habitat 
rule to be submitted for publication in the Federal Register by January 
30, 2009. The revised proposed rule was signed on and delivered to the 
Federal Register on July 30, 2008, and it subsequently published on 
August 13, 2008 (73 FR 47258). We also published supplemental 
information on the proposed rule to maintain the status of the frosted 
flatwoods salamander as threatened (73 FR 54125; September 18, 2008).

Public Comments

    Due to the nature of the proposed rule, we received combined 
comments from the public on the listing action and the critical habitat 
designation. Therefore, we have addressed these issues in a single 
comment section. In this final rule, we have presented the listing 
analysis first, followed by the analysis for designation of critical 
habitat. All public comments and our responses to them are presented 
under the Critical Habitat section.

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the taxonomic reclassification of the flatwoods salamander into two 
species, the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander, the determination of the status of these two species, and 
the designation of critical habitat for both species. For more 
information on the biology and ecology of flatwoods salamanders, refer 
to the final listing rule published in the Federal Register on April 1, 
1999 (64 FR 15691). For information on our proposed determination of 
endangered status for the reticulated flatwoods salamander, and on the 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the frosted flatwoods 
salamander and the reticulated flatwoods salamander, refer to the 
proposed rule published in the Federal Register on August 13, 2008 (73 
FR 47258).

Taxonomic Classification

    The original listing rule (64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999) described 
the geographic range of the flatwoods salamander as it was known at 
that time. The range for the species included occurrences across the 
lower southeastern Coastal Plain in Florida, Georgia, and South 
Carolina. Taxonomic revision resulted from research done by Pauly et 
al. (2007, pp. 415-429) that suggested a taxonomic reclassification of 
the species by splitting the flatwoods salamander into two species--the 
frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated

[[Page 6701]]

flatwoods salamander. The Apalachicola River drainage forms a 
geographic barrier between the two species. This drainage is a common 
site for east-west phylogeographic breaks in many other taxa as well. 
For this reason, the reclassification of the flatwoods salamander into 
two species is currently accepted by the scientific community and by 
the Service. We hereby amend the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h) to reflect this revision to taxonomy.
    Goin (1950, p. 299) recognized two distinct subspecies of flatwoods 
salamander based on morphological and color pattern variation. This 
reclassification between the eastern and western portions of the 
salamander's range was later discounted in an analysis by Martof and 
Gerhardt (1965, pp. 342-346) and for the past 40 years the concept of a 
single undifferentiated species persisted. Pauly et al. (2007, pp. 415-
429) conducted molecular and morphological analyses to test whether the 
flatwoods salamander, as originally described, followed a pattern of 
east-west disjunction at the Apalachicola River as has been described 
in many other species. They were able to demonstrate this predicted 
phylogeographic break. Based on mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), morphology, 
and allozymes, they recognize two species of flatwoods salamanders, 
frosted flatwoods salamander to the east of the Apalachicola drainage 
and reticulated flatwoods salamander to the west. The Apalachicola 
River is probably the cause of major disjunctions in species 
distributions due to the repeated marine embayments during the Pliocene 
and Pleistocene interglacials that likely caused a barrier to gene 
flow.
    In the Pauly et al. (2007, pp. 415-429) analyses, the use of mtDNA 
splits flatwoods salamander populations into two major clades east and 
west of the Apalachicola-Flint rivers. Samples from Jackson and Liberty 
Counties, Florida, are informative because, geographically, they are 
located on opposite sides of the river but are phylogenetically distant 
with respect to mtDNA sequence divergence. In contrast, geographically 
distant populations on the same side of the Apalachicola River are very 
closely related. Their morphological analyses also support a taxonomic 
boundary at the Apalachicola-Flint rivers. Salamanders on opposite 
sides of this boundary significantly differed in both body shape and 
size based on multivariate analyses. The number of costal grooves 
(grooves along the side body of salamanders used in species 
identification), snout-vent length, six additional morphometric traits, 
and sexual dimorphisms in tail length, height, and width are all 
significantly different between the two taxa. Due to the importance of 
the tail in ambystomatid courtship and fertilization, tail differences 
may be particularly important (Duellman and Trueb 1986, pp. 64-66).
    Allozyme data presented in Shaffer et al. (1991, pp. 290-291, 302) 
also indicated differences between salamanders on either side of the 
Apalachicola River. Their results demonstrated these populations have 
fixed-allele differences, consistent with the mtDNA and morphological 
results.
    The frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders can be 
differentiated from each other by the use of several morphological 
characters (Pauly et al. 2007, pp. 424-425). The frosted flatwoods 
salamander generally has more costal grooves and tends to be larger 
than the reticulated flatwoods salamander. For individuals of the same 
size, the frosted flatwoods salamander has longer forelimbs and hind 
limbs and a larger head. Male frosted flatwoods salamanders have longer 
tails than those of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. The belly 
pattern of the frosted flatwoods salamander consists of discrete white 
spots on a dark background, while the spots are less distinct in the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander giving a ``salt and pepper'' 
appearance (Goin 1950, pp. 300-314). The back pattern of the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander has a more net-like appearance than 
the frosted flatwoods salamander, as the common names imply.
    In summary, in the Regulation Promulgation section of this 
document, we present a taxonomic change reflecting the reclassification 
of flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) to frosted flatwoods 
salamander (A. cingulatum) and reticulated flatwoods salamander (A. 
bishopi).

Listing of the Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander

History of the Action

    On December 16, 1997, we published a proposed rule to list the 
flatwoods salamander as a threatened species (62 FR 65787). We 
published the final rule to list the species on April 1, 1999 (64 FR 
15691). On August 13, 2008, we published the proposal to list the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander, currently known as the flatwoods 
salamander west of the Apalachicola-Flint Rivers, as a new species (73 
FR 47258).

Species Information

    As far as we currently know, the life history traits and habitat 
use of both the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander are similar to those previously described for the 
flatwoods salamander. Both species of flatwoods salamanders are 
moderately sized salamanders that are generally black to chocolate-
black with fine, irregular, light gray lines and specks that form a 
cross-banded pattern across their backs (back pattern more net-like in 
the reticulated flatwoods salamander). The frosted flatwoods salamander 
generally tends to be larger than the reticulated flatwoods salamander, 
as described above. Adults are terrestrial and live underground most of 
the year. They breed in relatively small, isolated ephemeral ponds 
where the larvae develop until metamorphosis. Post-metamorphic 
salamanders migrate out of the ponds and into the uplands where they 
live until they move back to ponds to breed as adults. Both species of 
flatwoods salamander are endemic to the lower southeastern Coastal 
Plain and occur in what were historically longleaf pine-wiregrass 
flatwoods and savannas (Palis and Means 2005, pp. 608-609).
    The historical range of what is now considered the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander included parts of the States of Alabama, Florida, 
and Georgia, which are in the lower Coastal Plain of the southeastern 
United States west of the Apalachicola-Flint Rivers. We have compiled 
26 historical (pre-1990) records for the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander.
    In Alabama, there are five historical localities for the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander, all in the extreme southern portion 
of the State in Baldwin, Covington, Houston, and Mobile Counties. 
Surveys have been conducted at numerous sites since 1992; however, no 
reticulated flatwoods salamanders have been observed in Alabama since 
1981 (Jones et al. 1982, p. 51; Godwin 2008).
    Two historical records for the reticulated flatwoods salamander are 
known from Georgia, one each in Baker and Early Counties. Site visits 
to the areas in the vicinity of these two records have indicated that 
there is no longer suitable habitat for flatwoods salamanders at these 
localities. The area of the Baker County record has been cleared for 
agriculture (LaClaire 1994b). The upland habitat surrounding the Early 
County record has been converted to home sites and agricultural fields 
(Seyle 1994, p. 4). Four new reticulated flatwoods salamander breeding 
ponds

[[Page 6702]]

have been discovered since 1990. One pond is on the Mayhaw Wildlife 
Management Area owned by the State of Georgia in Miller County. Three 
ponds are on private property in Baker County. Currently, two 
reticulated flatwoods salamander populations are supported by these 
breeding sites in Georgia.
    Nineteen historical (pre-1990) records for the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander are known for Florida. Reticulated flatwoods 
salamander breeding has been documented at only five (26 percent) of 
these sites since 1990. Extensive surveys throughout the range of the 
Ambystoma cingulatum, conducted prior to the original listing in 1999, 
resulted in identifying 39 additional breeding sites. Thirty-one (80 
percent) of these sites are located in Okaloosa and Santa Rosa 
Counties, primarily on Department of Defense lands. Currently, 18 
populations of the reticulated flatwoods salamander are known from 
Florida.
    The combined data from all survey work completed since 1990 in 
Florida and Georgia indicate there are 20 populations of the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander. Some of these populations are 
inferred from the capture of a single individual. Nine (45 percent) of 
the known reticulated flatwoods salamander populations occur, at least 
in part, on public land. Of these, Department of Defense lands in 
Florida harbor four populations of the reticulated flatwoods salamander 
at Eglin Air Force Base, Hurlburt Field, and Navy Outlying Landing 
Field Holley. State and local agencies in Florida and Georgia partially 
manage habitat for five additional populations and monitor breeding 
ponds. In Florida, Pine Log State Forest harbors a single population; 
Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFLWMD) and Blackwater 
River State Forest share management of a single population; NWFLWMD and 
Yellow River Marsh Preserve State Park share management of most of 
another property supporting an additional population; and the Santa 
Rosa County School Board owns a portion of the habitat supporting a 
single population. In Georgia, the Mayhaw Wildlife Management Area 
supports a single population. Eleven (55 percent) reticulated flatwoods 
salamander populations are solely on private land.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander

    Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) promulgated 
to implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures 
for adding species to Federal lists. A species may be determined to be 
an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five 
factors described in section 4(a)(1). The original listing rule for the 
flatwoods salamander (64 FR 15691) contained a discussion of these five 
factors, as did the proposed rule (73 FR 47258; August 13, 2008) and 
supplemental information (73 FR 54125; September 18, 2008). Only those 
factors relevant to the proposed reclassification of the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma bishopi Goin, 1950) from threatened to 
endangered are described below:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range
    The major threat to the reticulated flatwoods salamander is loss of 
both its longleaf pine-slash pine flatwoods terrestrial habitat and its 
isolated, seasonally ponded breeding habitat. The combined pine 
flatwoods (longleaf pine-wiregrass flatwoods and slash pine flatwoods) 
historical area was approximately 32 million acres (ac) (12.8 million 
hectares (ha)) (Outcalt 1997, p. 4). This area has been reduced to 5.6 
million ac (2.27 million ha) or approximately 18 percent of its 
original extent (Outcalt 1997, p. 4). These remaining pine flatwoods 
(non-plantation forests) areas are typically fragmented, degraded, 
second-growth forests (Outcalt 1997, p. 6). Conversion of pine 
flatwoods to intensively managed (use of heavy mechanical site 
preparation, high stocking rates, and low fire frequencies) slash or 
loblolly plantations often resulted in degradation of flatwoods 
salamander habitat by creating well-shaded, closed-canopied forests 
with an understory dominated by shrubs or pine needles (Outcalt 1997, 
pp. 4-6; Palis 1997, pp. 61-63). Disturbance-sensitive ground cover 
species, such as wiregrass (Aristida stricta [= A. beyrichiana] Kesler 
et al. 2003, p. 9), dropseed (Sporobolus spp.), and perennial forbs 
were either greatly reduced in extent or were replaced by weedy 
pioneering species (Moore et al. 1982, p. 216; Outcalt and Lewis 1988, 
pp. 1-12; Hardin and White 1989, pp. 243-244). In a study conducted by 
Hedman et al. (2000, p. 233), longleaf pine plots had significantly 
more herbaceous species and greater herbaceous cover than loblolly or 
slash pine plots. For example, wiregrass is often lost from a site when 
habitat is converted from longleaf pine forest to other habitat types 
using common mechanical site preparation methods (Outcalt and Lewis 
1988, p. 2). Loss of wiregrass is considered an indicator of site 
degradation from fire suppression or soil disturbance (Clewell 1989; 
pp. 226, 230-232). Flatwoods salamanders are unlikely to persist in 
uplands with a disturbed, wiregrass-depauperate ground cover (Palis 
1997, p. 63).
    Forest management that includes intensive site preparation may 
adversely affect flatwoods salamanders directly and indirectly (Means 
et al. 1996, p. 426). Bedding (a technique in which a small ridge of 
surface soil is elevated as a planting bed) alters the surface soil 
layers, disrupts the site hydrology, and often eliminates the native 
herbaceous ground cover. This can have a cascading effect of reducing 
the invertebrate community that serves as a food source for flatwoods 
salamander adults. Post-larval and adult flatwoods salamanders occupy 
upland flatwoods sites where they live underground in crayfish burrows, 
root channels, or burrows of their own making (Goin 1950, p. 311; Neill 
1951, p. 765; Mount 1975, pp. 98-99; Ashton and Ashton 2005, pp. 63, 
65, 68-71). The occurrence of these underground habitats is dependent 
upon protection of the soil structure. Intensive site preparation 
destroys the subterranean voids and may result in entombing, injuring, 
or crushing individuals.
    Ecologists consider fire suppression the primary reason for the 
degradation of remaining longleaf pine forest habitat. The disruption 
of the natural fire cycle has resulted in an increase in slash and 
loblolly pine on sites formerly dominated by longleaf pine, an increase 
in hardwood understory, and a decrease in herbaceous ground cover 
(Wolfe et al. 1988, p. 132). Although reticulated flatwoods salamanders 
have been found at sites with predominately loblolly or slash pine, the 
long-term viability of populations at these sites is unknown. On public 
lands, prescribed burning is a significant part of habitat management 
plans. However, implementation of prescribed burning has been 
inconsistent due to financial constraints and limitations of weather 
(drought, wind direction, etc.) that restrict the number of 
opportunities to burn.
    These alterations of the longleaf pine ecosystem, as a result of 
incompatible forest practices, have caused historic losses of 
reticulated flatwoods salamander habitat. Conversion of native pine 
flatwoods to plantation forests is not considered a significant threat 
at this time. Forecasts indicate that most new plantation forests will 
come from converting agricultural fields (Wear and Greis 2002, p. 47). 
Nevertheless, we have documented the historic extirpation of at least 
one previously known population each from Gulf and Jackson Counties in 
Florida,

[[Page 6703]]

over the last 4 decades because of habitat degradation on lands 
currently managed as pine plantations. In addition, ponds surrounded by 
pine plantations and protected from the natural fire regime may become 
unsuitable as reticulated flatwoods salamander breeding sites due to 
canopy closure and the resultant reduction in emergent herbaceous 
vegetation needed for egg deposition and larval development sites 
(Palis 1997, p. 62). In addition, lack of fire within the pond during 
periods of dry-down may result in chemical and physical (vegetative) 
changes that are unsuitable for the salamander (Palis 1997, p. 62). 
Lack of fire in the ecotone may result in the development of a thick 
shrub zone making it physically difficult or impossible for adult 
salamanders to enter the breeding ponds (Ripley and Printiss 2005, pp. 
1-2, 11).
    Land use conversions to urban development and agriculture 
eliminated large areas of pine flatwoods in the past (Schultz 1983, pp. 
24-47; Stout and Marion 1993, pp. 422-429; Outcalt and Sheffield 1996, 
pp. 1-5; Outcalt 1997, pp. 1-6). Urbanization and agriculture have 
resulted in the loss of one reticulated flatwoods salamander population 
from each of the following counties: Mobile and Baldwin Counties, 
Alabama; Escambia, Jackson, and Washington Counties, Florida; and Early 
County, Georgia. Two known populations have been extirpated from Santa 
Rosa County, Florida. State forest inventories completed between 1989 
and 1995 indicated that flatwoods losses through land use conversion 
were still occurring (Outcalt 1997, pp. 3-6). Urbanization in the 
panhandle of Florida and around major cities is reducing the available 
pine forest habitat. Wear and Greis (2002, pp. 47, 92) identify 
conversion of forests to urban land uses as the most significant threat 
to southern forests. They predict that the South could lose about 12 
million ac (4.9 million ha) of pine forest habitat to urbanization 
between 1992 and 2020. Several relatively recent discoveries of 
previously unknown reticulated flatwoods salamander breeding sites in 
Santa Rosa County, Florida, have been made in conjunction with wetland 
surveys associated with development projects (Cooper 2008a). No 
reticulated flatwoods salamanders have been observed at these degraded 
sites since completion of the projects (Cooper 2008a).
    In addition to the loss of upland forested habitat, the number and 
diversity of small wetlands where reticulated flatwoods salamanders 
breed have been substantially reduced. Threats to breeding sites 
include alterations in hydrology, agricultural and urban development, 
road construction, incompatible silvicultural practices, shrub 
encroachment, dumping in or filling of ponds, conversion of wetlands to 
fish ponds, domestic animal grazing, soil disturbance, and fire 
suppression (Vickers et al. 1985, pp. 22-26; Palis 1997, p. 58; Ashton 
and Ashton 2005, p. 72). Hydrological alterations, such as those 
resulting from ditches created to drain flatwoods sites or fire breaks 
and plow lines, represent one of the most serious threats to 
reticulated flatwoods salamander breeding sites. Lowered water levels 
and shortened hydroperiods at these sites may prevent successful 
flatwoods salamander recruitment because larval salamanders require 11 
to 18 weeks to reach metamorphosis and leave the ponds (Palis 1995, p. 
352).
    Drought conditions exacerbate other threats and, although they 
represent a natural phenomenon, can lower the resiliency of populations 
to withstand other man-made threats. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 
has documented multiple drought periods in the southeastern United 
States since the 1890s (USGS 2000, p. 1). Significant drought periods 
documented in the last three decades are: 1980-1982, 1984-1989, 1998-
2002, 2005-2008 (USGS 1991, p. 163; USGS 2000, p. 1; Seager et al. 
2008, pp. 2, 22). Although a naturally occurring condition, drought 
presents additional complications for a species, like reticulated 
flatwoods salamander, which has been extirpated from most of its 
historic range and for which populations are represented by single 
ponds. Palis et al. (2006, p. 5-6) conducted a study in Florida on a 
population of the closely related frosted flatwoods salamander during a 
drought from 1999-2002. This study found three consecutive years of 
reproductive failure and a steadily declining adult immigration to 
breed at the site as the drought progressed.
    Taylor et al. (2005, p. 792) noted that wide variation in 
reproductive success is common among pond-breeding amphibians that 
depend on seasonal filling of these areas, but that adult persistence 
may buffer against fluctuations in that success, particularly for 
species that are long-lived. Although Palis et al. (2006, p. 6) 
suggested that the flatwoods salamander may only live about 4 years 
(based on captive animals), we are currently unsure of the exact 
lifespan of wild individuals. Other sources have suggested 10 years may 
represent a maximum lifespan (Jensen 2008). As a result, it is 
difficult to predict how long adults could persist in the landscape 
without a successful breeding event to replenish the population. 
However, Taylor et al. (2005, pp. 792, 796) constructed a model, based 
on extensive population data available for the marbled salamander 
(Ambystoma opacum), to look at how many years of reproductive failure 
would be required to result in local extinction of pond-breeding 
salamanders (with varying lifespans) and found that even without total 
reproductive failure, populations required moderate to high upland 
post-metamorphic survival to persist. Catastrophic failure in this 
study created fluctuations in the population, raised the threshold of 
survival required to achieve persistence, and imposed the possibility 
of extinction even under otherwise favorable environmental conditions. 
Reproductive failure was closely tied to hydrologic conditions; 
insufficient or short hydroperiod was the primary cause for complete 
failure. In addition, early filling of the ponds could also facilitate 
the establishment of invertebrate or vertebrate predators before 
hatching of the eggs (Taylor et al. 2005, p. 796).
    Palis et al. (2006, p. 6-7) discussed the necessity of protecting 
clusters of flatwoods salamander breeding sites, especially those with 
different hydrologic regimes, to guard against population declines at 
any one breeding site resulting from random events, such as droughts 
(Palis 2006, p. 7). A cluster of breeding sites represents a 
metapopulation, which is defined as neighboring local populations close 
enough to one another that dispersing individuals could be exchanged 
(gene flow) at least once per generation. Currently, the only place 
where a metapopulation exists for the reticulated flatwoods salamander 
is on Eglin Air Force Base.
    Habitat fragmentation of the longleaf pine ecosystem resulting from 
habitat conversion threatens the survival of the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander. Large tracts of intact longleaf pine flatwoods habitat are 
fragmented by pine plantations, roads, and unsuitable habitat. Most 
reticulated flatwoods salamander populations are widely separated from 
each other by unsuitable habitat. This has been verified through recent 
reviews of aerial photography and site visits to localities of 
historical and current records for the species. Studies have shown that 
the loss of fragmented populations is common, and recolonization is 
critical for their regional survival (Fahrig and Merriam 1994, pp. 50-
56; Burkey 1995, pp. 527-540). Amphibian populations may be

[[Page 6704]]

unable to recolonize areas after local extirpations due to their 
physiological constraints, relatively low mobility, and site fidelity 
(Blaustein et al. 1994, pp. 60, 67-68). In the case of the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander, 70 percent of populations only have one breeding 
pond and if the habitat at that one site is destroyed, recolonization 
would be impossible (see further discussion of metapopulation dynamics 
under Factor E).
    Roads contribute to habitat fragmentation by isolating blocks of 
remaining contiguous habitat. They may disrupt migration routes and 
dispersal of individuals to and from breeding sites. Road construction 
can result in changes in hydrology and destruction of breeding ponds, 
as described above. In addition, vehicles may also cause the death of 
reticulated flatwoods salamanders when they are attempting to cross 
roads (Means 1996, p. 2). Road construction resulted in the destruction 
of a historic reticulated flatwoods salamander breeding pond in 
Escambia County, Florida (Palis 1997, p. 62). A road through Eglin Air 
Force Base (Eglin) and Hurlburt Field has been proposed by the 
Northwest Florida Transportation Corridor Authority (NWFTCA) (NWFTCA 
2007). We are currently in consultation regarding this bypass project. 
The conceptually approved route for the project, as currently proposed, 
places the road adjacent to or through 22 breeding sites that support 
the largest reticulated flatwoods salamander population (Mittiga 2007). 
However, the Service has been assured by Eglin that they will not allow 
negative impacts to the salamander's habitat and that they will 
continue to ensure the conservation of the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander (Department of the Air Force (DoAF) 2008a, p. 1; 2008b, p. 
1). The Service will work with Eglin to protect these breeding sites 
which represent the only population of this species supported by more 
than three breeding ponds and functioning as a metapopulation.
    In summary, the loss of habitat is a significant threat to the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander. This threat is compounded by current 
drought conditions and the nature of pond-breeding salamanders to 
undergo periodic reproductive failure. We consider this threat to be 
imminent and of high magnitude because of this species' narrow range 
and the rapid rate of habitat loss that is currently occurring within 
the range of this species. Thirteen (65 percent) of the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander populations are partly or completely on private 
land where habitat continues to be degraded by management that 
frequently includes fire suppression and intensive site preparation 
that alters surface soil layers, disrupts site hydrology, disturbs the 
ground cover, and which has the potential to entomb, injure, or crush 
individual salamanders. Forest management conducted in this way is 
considered incompatible for maintaining flatwoods salamander 
populations. Range-wide historic losses of both upland and wetland 
habitat have occurred due to conversion of flatwoods sites to 
agriculture, urban development, and intensively managed pine 
plantations. The remaining flatwoods habitat continues to be threatened 
by fire suppression and other incompatible forest management practices, 
road construction, and habitat fragmentation across the range of the 
species. Localized threats to existing wetland breeding sites include 
alterations in hydrology from agriculture, urban development, road 
construction, and incompatible forest management; and fire suppression. 
As a result, we have determined that the present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander's habitat and range represents an imminent and significant 
threat to the species.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    Overcollecting does not appear to be a threat to the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander at this time. There is no evidence of a past or 
current problem with collection of this species. Consequently, we have 
determined that the factor of overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to 
the reticulated flatwoods salamander at this time.
C. Disease or Predation
    Although disease has not been specifically documented in the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander thus far, disease outbreaks with mass 
mortality in other species of salamanders indicate that disease may be 
a threat for this species as well (Daszak et al. 1999, p. 736). ``Red-
leg'' disease (Aeromonas hydrophila), a pathogen bacterium, caused 
mortality of the mole salamander (A. talpoideum) at the breeding pond 
of the reticulated flatwoods salamander in Miller County, Georgia 
(Maerz 2006), and reticulated flatwoods salamanders have not been 
observed at this site since the disease was reported. In addition, 
Whiles et al. (2004, p. 211) found a parasitic nematode (Hedruris 
siredonis, family Hedruridae) in larvae of the closely related frosted 
flatwoods salamander from South Carolina and Florida. This parasite has 
been found in other ambystomatids and can cause individuals to become 
undersized and thin, thus reducing their fitness (Whiles et al. 2004, 
p. 212). The infestations were not considered heavy and were probably 
not having a negative impact on the larvae studied; however, 
environmental degradation may change the dynamics between salamander 
populations and normally innocuous parasites (Whiles et al. 2004, p. 
212). Ranaviruses in the family Iridoviridae and the amphibian chytrid 
fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) may be other potential threats, 
although the susceptibility of the reticulated flatwoods salamander to 
these diseases is unknown. Ranaviruses have been responsible for die-
offs of tiger salamanders throughout western North America and spotted 
salamanders (A. maculatum) in Maine (Daszak et al. 1999, p. 736). 
Chytrid fungus has been discovered and associated with mass mortality 
in tiger salamanders in southern Arizona and California, and the Santa 
Cruz long-toed salamander (A. macrodactylum croceum) (Vredenburg and 
Summers 2001, p. 151; Davidson et al. 2003, p. 601; Padgett-Flohr and 
Longcore 2005, p. 50). This discussion of disease in other species of 
closely related salamanders indicates the potential existence of 
similar threats to reticulated flatwoods salamander populations.
    Exposure to increased predation by fish is a threat to the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander when isolated, seasonally ponded 
wetland breeding sites are changed to or connected to more permanent 
wetlands inhabited by fish species not typically found in temporary 
ponds. Studies of other ambystomatid species have demonstrated a 
decline in larval survival in the presence of predatory fish (Semlitsch 
1987, p. 481). Ponds may be modified specifically to serve as fish 
ponds or sites may be altered because of drainage ditches, firebreaks, 
or vehicle tracks that can all provide avenues for fish to enter the 
wetlands.
    Red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are potential predators 
of flatwoods salamanders, especially in disturbed areas. They have been 
seen in areas disturbed by the installation of drift fences at known 
breeding sites of the closely related frosted flatwoods salamander 
(Palis 2008). The severity and magnitude, as well as the long-term 
effect, of fire ants on reticulated flatwoods salamander populations 
are currently unknown.

[[Page 6705]]

    In summary, diseases of amphibians in the southeastern United 
States remain largely unstudied. However, given the incidence of 
disease in species that could be considered surrogates for flatwoods 
salamanders, the probability exists for similar infections to occur in 
reticulated flatwoods salamander populations. We consider this to be an 
imminent threat of moderate magnitude. Predation by fish is a historic 
threat that continues to be a localized problem when ditches, 
firebreaks, or vehicle ruts provide connections allowing the movement 
of fish from permanent water bodies into reticulated flatwoods 
salamander breeding sites. Sixty-five percent of reticulated flatwoods 
salamander breeding ponds are partly or completely on private land. 
This situation increases the probability of fish being introduced to a 
breeding site, which would then cause the breeding habitat to become 
unsuitable and result in the extinction of the population. Fire ants 
also have the potential of being a localized threat, particularly in 
disturbed areas. In addition, we believe that the threats described 
here would also act to exacerbate other threats to the species. 
Overall, we consider the threat within this factor to be imminent and 
of moderate magnitude because 70 percent of reticulated flatwoods 
salamander populations are supported by a single breeding pond; 
diseases and fish and invertebrate predators have been found at ponds 
within the species' range; and these diseases and predators are known 
to cause mortality or reproductive failure in related species.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    There are no existing regulatory mechanisms for the protection of 
the upland habitats where reticulated flatwoods salamanders spend most 
of their lives. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act is the primary 
Federal law that has the potential to provide some protection for the 
wetland breeding sites of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. 
However, due to recent case law (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook 
County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 531 U.S. 159 (2001); 
Rapanos v. United States 547 U.S. 715 (2006)), isolated wetlands are no 
longer considered to be under Federal jurisdiction (not regulatory 
wetlands). Wetlands are only considered to be under the jurisdiction of 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) if a ``significant nexus'' 
exists to a navigable waterway or its tributaries. Currently, some 
Corps Districts do not coordinate with us on flatwoods salamanders and, 
since isolated wetlands are not considered under their jurisdiction, 
they are often not included on maps in permit applications (Brooks 
2008). We are aware of two isolated wetlands that supported reticulated 
flatwoods salamander populations that have been lost since 2006 under 
this scenario.
    Longleaf pine habitat management plans have been written for public 
lands occupied by the reticulated flatwoods salamander. They include 
management plans for State-owned lands and integrated natural resource 
management plans (INRMPs) for Department of Defense lands. Most of the 
plans contain specific goals and objectives regarding habitat 
management that would benefit reticulated flatwoods salamanders 
including prescribed burning. However, because multiple-use is the 
guiding principle on most public land, protection of the flatwoods 
salamander may be just one of many management goals including timber 
production and military and recreational use.
    At the State and local levels, regulatory mechanisms are limited. 
Although not listed as threatened or endangered in Alabama, the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander is listed among those nongame species 
for which it is ``unlawful to take, capture, kill, or attempt to take, 
capture or kill; possess, sell, trade for anything of monetary value, 
or offer to sell or trade for anything of monetary value'' (Alabama 
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources 2008, p. 1). The 
flatwoods salamander is listed as a threatened species in the State of 
Georgia (Jensen 1999, pp. 92-93). This designation protects the species 
by preventing its sale, purchase, or possession in Georgia and by 
prohibiting actions that cause direct mortality or the destruction of 
its habitat on lands owned by the State of Georgia (Ozier 2008). There 
is only one known flatwoods salamander population on lands owned by the 
State of Georgia, and that is Mayhaw Wildlife Management Area. In 2001, 
the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) listed 
the flatwoods salamander (which would include the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander) as a species of special concern (FFWCC 2007, p. 2) and 
prohibited direct take except through permit. As part of the listing 
process, a statewide management plan was developed for the salamander 
in Florida (FFWCC 2001, p. 1-60). This plan sets an ambitious 
conservation goal of maintaining at least 129 self-sustaining 
populations of flatwoods salamanders (which would include both frosted 
and reticulated flatwoods salamander species) in Florida. The plan also 
outlines a monitoring plan for population status assessment, an 
implementation strategy for the management of populations, and areas 
for future research. The Alabama and Florida regulations offer no 
protection against the most significant threat to the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander, loss of habitat.
    In summary, existing regulatory mechanisms provide little direct 
protection of reticulated flatwoods salamander habitat, the loss of 
which is the most significant threat to the species. Reticulated 
flatwoods salamander breeding sites may in some instances come under 
the jurisdiction of the Corps, but most often they are provided little 
regulatory protection. These inadequacies represent range-wide historic 
and known threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander on private 
lands within the range. We consider this threat as imminent because the 
existing regulations are not protecting against the other imminent 
threats to the species. Also, this threat is of high magnitude because 
of the small range of the species, and because 65 percent of 
populations are not protected from further development because they are 
located partially or completely on private lands.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
    Metapopulations are important to the long-term survival of 
temporary pond breeding amphibians. In these species, such as the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander, breeding ponds may differ in the 
frequency of their ability to support amphibian reproduction. As a 
result, extirpation and colonization rates can be a function of pond 
spatial arrangement as well as local habitat quality (Marsh and Trenham 
2001, p. 41). Of the 20 known reticulated flatwoods salamanders 
populations, only 6 (30 percent) are supported by more than one 
breeding pond and only one (5 percent) population (on Eglin-Hurlburt 
Field) is supported by more than three breeding ponds. For 70 percent 
(14 out of 20) of the known reticulated flatwoods salamander 
populations, any one of the many threats that may render a breeding 
pond unsuitable could cause the extirpation of the affected population.
    Invasive plant species, such as cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), 
threaten to further degrade existing flatwoods habitat. Cogongrass, a 
perennial grass native to Southeast Asia, is one of the leading threats 
to the ecological integrity of native herbaceous flora, including that 
in the longleaf pine ecosystem (Jose et al. 2002, p. 43). Cogongrass 
can displace most of the

[[Page 6706]]

existing vegetation except large trees. Especially threatening to the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander is the ability of cogongrass to 
outcompete wiregrass, a key vegetative component of flatwoods 
salamander habitat. Changing the species composition in this way can 
alter the soil chemistry, nutrient cycling, and hydrology of an 
infested site (Jose et al. 2002, p. 43). Reticulated flatwoods 
salamander habitat management plans will need to address threats posed 
by cogongrass and other invasive plant species and include strategies 
to control them. An integrated management approach to controlling 
cogongrass is outlined in Jose et al. (2002, p. 42).
    Pesticides (including herbicides) may pose a threat to amphibians, 
such as the reticulated flatwoods salamander, because their permeable 
eggs and skin readily absorb substances from the surrounding aquatic or 
terrestrial environment (Duellman and Trueb 1986, pp. 199-200). 
Negative effects that commonly used pesticides and herbicides may have 
on amphibians include delayed metamorphosis, paralysis, reduced growth 
rate, and mortality (Bishop 1992, pp. 67-69). In addition, herbicides 
used near reticulated flatwoods salamander breeding ponds may alter the 
density and species composition of vegetation surrounding a breeding 
site and reduce the number of potential sites for egg deposition, 
larval development, or shelter for migrating salamanders. However, if 
application by aerial spraying is avoided, the potential for negative 
effects from pesticide and herbicide use in areas adjacent to breeding 
ponds would be reduced (Tatum 2004, p. 1047). Herbicides may be a 
necessary tool to reduce or eliminate woody vegetation or invasive 
plants when the use of prescribed fire is not possible or effective 
(Jensen 2007, Wigley 2008). Nevertheless, pesticides should not be used 
in flatwoods salamander habitat unless no other habitat management tool 
is available; herbicide label directions should be followed closely; 
and aerial spraying should never be used as an application technique. 
Under these conditions, we consider this threat to be of moderate 
magnitude.
    Studies of other ambystomatid species have demonstrated a decline 
in larval survival in the presence of predatory fish, as mentioned 
above under Factor C. One of the potential reasons for this decline may 
be the negative effect resulting from these fish competing with 
salamander larvae for invertebrate prey. The invertebrates found by 
Whiles et al. (2004, p. 212) in a study of larval frosted and 
reticulated flatwoods salamander gut contents are typical of freshwater 
habitats in the Southeast that do not contain predatory fish on a 
regular basis. The presence of predatory fish has a marked effect on 
invertebrate communities and alters prey availability for larval 
salamanders with the potential for negative effects on larval fitness 
and survival (Semlitsch 1987, p. 481). Wherever connections have been 
created between permanent water and flatwoods salamander ponds, such as 
through installation of firebreaks or ditches, this threat from 
predatory fish exists.
    Studies of reticulated flatwoods salamander populations, since the 
original species listing of flatwoods salamander as threatened (64 FR 
15691; April 1, 1999), have been limited due to drought. Data on the 
numbers of adults within existing populations do not exist. However, 
given the low number of individuals encountered even when breeding is 
verified, populations are likely to be very small at any given breeding 
site. Small populations are at increased threat of extirpation from 
natural processes (genetic isolation, inbreeding depression, and 
drought), as well as the manmade threats listed above.
    In summary, a variety of other natural or manmade factors 
historically or currently threaten, or have the potential to threaten, 
the reticulated flatwoods salamander. The loss of metapopulation 
structure in the distribution of reticulated flatwoods salamander 
populations was a range-wide threat that caused historic losses of this 
species. It continues to be a current threat for 70 percent of the 
remaining reticulated flatwoods salamander populations. Fire 
suppression and inadequate habitat management continue to cause the 
degradation of occupied sites, primarily on private land. Invasive 
plant species probably did not have much of a historic impact on 
salamander populations, but they are a range-wide current threat, and 
they are likely to become more widespread and difficult to control. 
Range-wide, low densities of individuals in a given population have 
been a historic threat and continue to be a threat for most reticulated 
flatwoods salamander populations, particularly due to past and current 
drought conditions, habitat loss, population fragmentation, and 
periodic reproductive failures that occur naturally in pond-breeding 
amphibians. The impact that competing predators may have on the 
salamander's prey base, and the threat of pesticide and herbicide use, 
are less clear as historic threats but remain potential localized 
threats for the species. Therefore, while we have determined that other 
natural and manmade factors, such as invasive species, pesticides, and 
competition for the species' prey base may threaten the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander, the severity and magnitude of these threats are 
not currently known. Acting in coordination with threats listed above 
under Factors A through D, the threats under Factor E could increase 
the severity of the other threats. In addition, small population size 
is particularly detrimental when combined with habitat loss, the 
ongoing drought, and the nature of this pond-breeding amphibian to 
experience periodic reproductive failure.

Determination

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the reticulated flatwoods salamander. In summary, the most 
significant historical threat to the reticulated flatwoods salamander, 
as listed above in Factor A, is loss of its habitat. However, a variety 
of localized threats described under Factors A, C, D, and E continue to 
impact the remaining reticulated flatwoods salamander populations and 
their habitat. These include alterations in the hydrology of existing 
wetland breeding sites (including ``ditching,'' which can result in the 
introduction of predatory fish), urban development, road construction, 
incompatible forest management, fire suppression, and disease. The 
severity and magnitude of threats under Factor E are not currently 
known. Nevertheless, we have determined that threats under this factor 
will exacerbate the effects of threats due to habitat loss and drought. 
As described in Factor E above, small populations are at increased 
threat of extirpation from natural processes (genetic isolation, 
inbreeding depression, and drought), as well as the manmade threats 
listed above. Furthermore, as described in Factor D (above), existing 
regulatory mechanisms provide little direct protection of reticulated 
flatwoods salamander habitat, the loss of which is the most significant 
threat to the species. Reticulated flatwoods salamander breeding sites 
may in some instances come under the jurisdiction of the Corps, but 
most often they are provided little regulatory protection. This is 
likely the reason that two populations were lost recently to 
development. These inadequacies of existing regulatory mechanisms 
addressing habitat loss represent range-wide historic and potential 
threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander.

[[Page 6707]]

Finally, there are potential localized threats from fire ants, 
pesticides, and invasive plants for which the extent of impact is yet 
undeterminable, but we believe they are legitimate threats due to both 
their impact on surrogate species and their prevalence in the types of 
habitats used by this species.
    Only 20 reticulated flatwoods salamander populations are known. 
Fourteen (70 percent) of these populations are supported by only one 
breeding site. A population with only one breeding site has a tenuous 
future just given randomly varying environmental factors without 
considering the additional threats of habitat destruction and 
degradation that further threaten these populations. As noted 
previously, the habitat within the range of the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander is currently experiencing drought conditions. Palis et al. 
(2006, p. 5-6) studied a frosted flatwoods salamander population in 
Florida during a drought from 1999-2002. This study documented three 
consecutive years of reproductive failure and a steady decline in adult 
immigration to the site for breeding as the drought progressed. 
Catastrophic reproductive failure occurs even in healthy populations of 
pond-breeding amphibians. When it does occur, the modeling efforts of 
Taylor et al. (2005, p. 796) showed that each year of reproductive 
failure raises the threshold of survival required to achieve 
persistence and imposes the possibility of extirpation even under 
otherwise favorable environmental conditions. Taylor et al. (2005, p. 
799) reminds us that, particularly with small populations or low 
population growth rates (as exists with the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander), the effects of reproductive failure are made worse by 
demographic stochasticity. Even in populations with multiple breeding 
ponds, amphibian populations may be unable to recolonize areas after 
local extirpations due to their physiological constraints, relatively 
low mobility, and site fidelity (Blaustein et al. 1994, pp. 60, 67-68). 
In the case of the reticulated flatwoods salamander, 70 percent of 
populations have only one breeding pond. If the habitat at that site is 
destroyed, recolonization would be impossible and the population 
supported by that breeding pond would be extirpated. Since the early 
1990s, four reticulated flatwoods salamander populations have been 
lost, two populations due to urbanization and two populations due to 
incompatible forest management (Palis 2006, Cooper and LaClaire 2007, 
Cooper 2008b). The most robust reticulated flatwoods salamander 
population remaining is located on Eglin. Continued conservation of 
this locality is imperative because it represents habitat for the only 
population that is supported by more than three breeding ponds and 
functions as a metapopulation. In other words, this population has the 
best chance of surviving demographic and environmental stochasticity 
given that the distribution of breeding sites is within the dispersal 
distance of adult reticulated flatwoods salamanders.
    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, 
we have determined that the reticulated flatwoods salamander is in 
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Endangered status reflects the vulnerability of this species to 
factors that negatively affect the species and its limited and 
restricted habitat. Habitat loss on private lands is an imminent threat 
that is compounded by a variety of other factors. Fire suppression on 
private lands occupied by the reticulated flatwoods salamander 
represents one of the biggest threats to the species' habitat and the 
continued existence of the species on these sites. In addition, since 
1999 we have lost at least two reticulated flatwoods salamander 
breeding ponds due to the threat of inadequate existing regulatory 
mechanisms. We believe the destruction of these ponds was a result of 
the continuing threat that isolated wetlands are rarely, if ever, under 
the jurisdiction of the Corps. We believe that, combined, the effect of 
the historical and ongoing drought; historical, current, and projected 
habitat loss and degradation; and the exacerbating effects of disease, 
predation, small population size, and isolation result in the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander being in danger of extinction 
throughout all of its range. We believe these threats, in particular 
the threats from habitat loss and drought, to be imminent and are 
projected to continue at the current rate or increase in the future. 
Further, we have determined that these threats are operating on the 
species and its habitat with a high degree of magnitude in that they 
affect the species throughout all of its range and with a high degree 
of severity, as discussed above.

Listing of the Frosted Flatwoods Salamander

History of the Action

    The final rule to list the flatwoods salamander as threatened was 
published on April 1, 1999 (64 FR 15691). On August 13, 2008, we 
published a proposed rule to reclassify the listing of the species into 
two distinct species: Frosted flatwoods salamander and reticulated 
flatwoods salamander due to new taxonomic information (73 FR 47258). In 
that proposed rule, we provided the analysis of the threats for the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander and our determination of its 
endangered status. On September 18, 2008, we published a notice 
providing supplemental information to the proposed rule that included 
our analysis and determination to retain threatened status for the 
frosted flatwoods salamander (73 FR 54125).

Species Information

    Taxonomic revision resulting from research done by Pauly et al. 
(2007, pp. 415-429) split the flatwoods salamander into two species--
the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander. Background information on flatwoods salamanders, a 
discussion of their taxonomic status, and the five-factor analysis and 
associated determination of endangered status for the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander are provided above. Information provided here, and 
in the analysis that follows, will only address issues specific to the 
frosted flatwoods salamander.
    Based on the best available information, the life-history traits 
and habitat use of both the frosted flatwoods salamander and the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander are similar to those previously 
described for the flatwoods salamander (64 FR 15691, April 1, 1999; 73 
FR 47258, August 13, 2008). However, most of our references predate 
Pauly et al. (2007, p. 415) and, therefore, do not distinguish between 
the two species.
    Flatwoods salamanders are endemic to the lower southeastern Coastal 
Plain and occur in what were historically longleaf pine-wiregrass 
flatwoods and savannas. The historical range of what is now considered 
the frosted flatwoods salamander included parts of the States of 
Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. This area encompassed the lower 
Coastal Plain of the southeastern United States along the Gulf Coast 
east of the Apalachicola-Flint Rivers, across north Florida, south into 
north-central Florida, and north along the Atlantic Coast through 
coastal Georgia and South Carolina.
    We have compiled 84 historical (pre-1990) records for the frosted 
flatwoods salamander. Twenty historical records (with supporting 
locality information) for the frosted flatwoods salamander are known 
from eight counties in Florida. Frosted flatwoods salamander breeding 
has been documented at only four (20

[[Page 6708]]

percent) of these sites since 1990. Surveys conducted since 1990 by 
Federal and State agency personnel, as well as private parties, have 
resulted in the identification of more than 50 additional frosted 
flatwoods salamander breeding sites, including two sites in Jefferson 
County, a county that previously was not known to be occupied by the 
salamander. Most of these new breeding sites are located on the 
Apalachicola and Osceola National Forests, and on St. Marks National 
Wildlife Refuge. One site, discovered in 1998 on Tate's Hell State 
Forest, has been degraded as a result of habitat modification efforts 
that created a more permanently flooded wetland and flooded the ecotone 
at the historic breeding pond. The upland habitat is degraded as well 
with the result that the primary constituent elements (PCEs) on the 
site are no longer present (Enge 2008). Fifteen populations of the 
frosted flatwoods salamander are known from Baker, Franklin, Jefferson, 
Liberty, and Wakulla Counties in Florida.
    Thirty-four historical records for the frosted flatwoods salamander 
are known from 20 counties in Georgia. Frosted flatwoods salamanders 
have not been seen again at any of these sites in recent years; 
however, surveys conducted since 1990 have resulted in the discovery of 
23 new breeding sites. All but one of these new sites are located on 
the Fort Stewart Military Installation. The one additional pond was 
discovered on the Townsend Bombing Range. Currently, these breeding 
sites support six frosted flatwoods salamander populations in Bryan, 
Evans, Liberty, and McIntosh Counties, Georgia, all on Department of 
Defense lands. The frosted flatwoods salamander is assumed to be 
extirpated from 16 other counties in Georgia where it previously 
occurred. However, some suitable habitat still remains on the 
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge and the potential exists for the 
species to occur there.
    Thirty historical records for the frosted flatwoods salamander are 
known from five counties in South Carolina. Since 1990, metamorphic 
frosted flatwoods salamanders have been documented at six (21 percent) 
of these sites, and one new breeding site has been discovered. 
Currently, four populations of the frosted flatwoods salamander are 
known from Berkeley, Charleston, and Jasper Counties in South Carolina. 
Two populations are on private land in Jasper County: One population 
occurs on the Francis Marion National Forest in Berkeley County, and 
one population occurs on the Santee Coastal Preserve (state-owned and 
managed) in Charleston County.
    The combined data from all survey work completed since 1990 in 
Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina indicate there are 25 populations 
of the frosted flatwoods salamander. Some of these populations are 
inferred from the capture of a single individual. Twenty-two (88 
percent) of the known frosted flatwoods salamander populations occur 
primarily on public land. Sixteen of the populations (64 percent of 
total populations of the species) on public land represent 
metapopulations supported by more than one breeding site. A single 
population occurs on each of the following publicly owned sites: 
Osceola National Forest in Florida; Townsend Bombing Range in Georgia; 
and Francis Marion National Forest and Santee Coastal Reserve in South 
Carolina. In Florida, habitat supports 10 populations on Apalachicola 
National Forest and 2 populations on St. Marks National Wildlife 
Refuge. In Georgia, five populations occur on Fort Stewart Military 
Installation. Three (12 percent) frosted flatwoods salamander 
populations are solely on private land.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (Frosted Flatwoods Salamander)

    Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and regulations (50 
CFR part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the 
Act set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal Lists of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be 
determined to be endangered or threatened due to one or more of the 
five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. The original 
listing rule for the flatwoods salamander (64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999), 
and the supplement to the August 2008 proposed rule (73 FR 54125; 
September 18, 2008), contain a discussion of these five factors. Only 
those factors relevant to the frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma 
cingulatum Cope, 1867) are described below:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range
    The major historical threat to the frosted flatwoods salamander was 
loss of habitat, both its longleaf pine-slash pine flatwoods 
terrestrial habitat and its isolated, seasonally ponded breeding 
habitat. Refer above to Factor A under ``Summary of Factors Affecting 
the Species (Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander)'' for general 
information on threats to pine flatwoods habitat that also applies to 
the frosted flatwoods salamander.
    Degradation of the remaining frosted flatwoods salamander habitat 
in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina is a current, ongoing threat, 
primarily on private land. Ecologists consider fire suppression the 
primary reason for the degradation of remaining longleaf pine forest 
habitat. The disruption affects both the upland forested habitat of 
adult salamanders and their ponded breeding habitat also required for 
development of larval salamanders. Alterations of the longleaf pine 
ecosystem, as a result of incompatible forest practices, have caused 
the historic loss of most of the original frosted flatwoods salamander 
habitat. Conversion of native pine flatwoods to plantation forests is 
not considered a significant threat at this time. However, much of the 
historic extirpation of frosted flatwoods populations in Florida, 
Georgia, and South Carolina over the last six decades resulted from 
habitat degradation on lands managed for timber extraction.
    Land use conversions to housing, other development projects, and 
agriculture eliminated large areas of pine flatwoods in the past 
(Schultz 1983, pp. 24-47; Stout and Marion 1993, pp. 422-429; Outcalt 
and Sheffield 1996, pp. 1-5; Outcalt 1997, pp. 1-6). Residential 
development and conversion to agriculture have resulted in the 
historical loss of one frosted flatwoods salamander population each 
from Ben Hill, Berrien, Brooks, Effingham, Emanuel, and Irwin Counties, 
Georgia (Seyle 1994, pp. 4-5); an additional site has been degraded in 
Orangeburg County, South Carolina, and the population at this site is 
also considered extirpated (LaClaire 1994a). State forest inventories 
completed between 1989 and 1995 indicated that flatwoods losses through 
land use conversion were still occurring (Outcalt 1997, pp. 3-6); 
however, further conversions are only likely to impact three of the 
populations occurring in large part on private lands or only 12 percent 
of the total frosted flatwoods salamander populations.
    In addition to the loss of upland forested habitat, the number and 
diversity of small wetlands where frosted flatwoods salamanders breed 
have been substantially reduced. Threats to breeding sites include 
alterations in hydrology, agricultural and urban development, road 
construction, incompatible silvicultural practices, shrub encroachment, 
dumping in or filling of ponds, conversion of wetlands to fish ponds, 
domestic animal grazing, soil disturbance, and fire suppression

[[Page 6709]]

(Vickers et al. 1985, pp. 22-26; Palis 1997, p. 58; Ashton and Ashton 
2005, p. 72). As described above (see Species Information), the 
unintentional result of hydrological restoration on Tate's Hell State 
Forest was the destruction of the ephemeral nature of a reticulated 
flatwoods salamander breeding site and the extinction of the salamander 
population on that site.
    Drought conditions exacerbate other threats, and although they 
represent a natural phenomenon, can lower the resiliency of populations 
to withstand other man-made threats. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 
has documented multiple drought periods in the southeastern United 
States since the 1890s (USGS 2000, p. 1). Among significant periods 
documented in the last three decades are: 1980-1982, 1984-1989, 1998-
2002, 2005-2008 (USGS 1991, p. 163; USGS 2000, p. 1; Seager et al. 
2008, pp. 2, 22). Although drought is a naturally occurring condition, 
it presents additional complications for a species like the frosted 
flatwoods salamander, which has been extirpated from most of its 
historic range. Palis et al. (2006, p. 5-6) conducted a study in 
Florida on a population of the frosted flatwoods salamander during a 
drought from 1999-2002. This study found 3 consecutive years of 
reproductive failure and a steadily declining adult immigration to 
breed at the site as the drought progressed.
    Palis et al. (2006, p. 6-7) discussed the necessity of protecting 
clusters of flatwoods salamander breeding sites, especially those with 
different hydrologic regimes, to guard against population declines at 
any one breeding site resulting from random events, such as droughts. 
Currently, 15 populations of the frosted flatwoods salamander, 
occurring on public land, are supported by multiple breeding sites.
    Habitat fragmentation of the longleaf pine ecosystem resulting from 
habitat conversion is primarily a historical threat to the frosted 
flatwoods salamander. Large tracts of intact longleaf pine flatwoods 
habitat are fragmented by pine plantations, roads, and unsuitable 
habitat. Although the threat of ongoing habitat fragmentation has 
slowed, the effect of past habitat loss is that many frosted flatwoods 
salamander populations are widely separated from each other by 
unsuitable habitat. This has been verified through recent reviews of 
aerial photography and site visits to localities of historical and 
current records for the species. Studies have shown that the loss of 
fragmented populations is common, and recolonization is critical for 
their regional survival (Fahrig and Merriam 1994, pp. 50-56; Burkey 
1995, pp. 527-540). Amphibian populations may be unable to recolonize 
areas after local extirpations due to their physiological constraints, 
relatively low mobility, and site fidelity (Blaustein et al. 1994, pp. 
60, 67-68). In the case of the frosted flatwoods salamander, 36 percent 
of populations have only one breeding pond. If the habitat at that site 
is destroyed, recolonization would be impossible (see further 
discussion of metapopulation dynamics under Factor E).
    Roads have contributed to habitat fragmentation by isolating blocks 
of remaining contiguous habitat. Roads disrupt migration routes and 
dispersal of individuals to and from breeding sites. Road construction 
can result in changes in hydrology and destruction of breeding ponds. 
Highway construction and associated development resulted in the 
destruction of a historic frosted flatwoods salamander breeding pond in 
Chatham County, Georgia (Seyle 1994, pp. 3-4). In addition, vehicles 
may also cause the death of frosted flatwoods salamanders when they are 
attempting to cross roads (Means 1996, p. 2).
    Off-road vehicle (ORV) use within frosted flatwoods salamander 
breeding ponds and their margins severely degrades the wetland habitat. 
In the Southeast, ORV use impacts habitat used by frosted flatwoods 
salamanders, has the potential to cause direct mortality of individual 
salamanders, and is a threat on both public and private land. On public 
lands, areas may be designated as off-limits to ORV use (U.S. Forest 
Service 2007, p. 19), but these restrictions are difficult to enforce. 
Even a single afternoon of individuals riding their ORVs in a pond can 
completely destroy the integrity of breeding sites by damaging or 
killing the herbaceous vegetation and rutting the substrate (Ripley and 
Printiss 2005, pp. 11-12). There is also the potential for direct 
injury or mortality of salamanders by ORVs at breeding sites (Ripley 
and Printiss 2005, p. 12).
    In summary, the loss of habitat was a significant historical threat 
to the frosted flatwoods salamander. This range-wide loss of both 
upland and wetland habitat occurred primarily due to conversion of 
flatwoods sites to agriculture, residential development, and 
intensively managed pine plantations. This historic loss of habitat is 
presently compounded by current environmental conditions (drought), 
proposed projects on private land that do not require Corps permits 
under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and the nature of 
pond-breeding salamanders to undergo periodic reproductive failure. We 
consider this threat to be primarily a past and future threat of 
moderate magnitude because most of the remaining occupied habitat of 
this species occurs on public lands that are managed to support the 
native longleaf pine ecosystem. However, 12 percent of frosted 
flatwoods salamander populations are on private land where habitat 
continues to be degraded by fire suppression and incompatible 
management (defined above under summary discussion for reticulated 
flatwoods salamander). If the remaining frosted flatwoods salamander 
habitat on public land continues to be protected from fire suppression 
and other incompatible forest management practices, road construction, 
and additional habitat fragmentation, the threat of habitat loss should 
be limited. Localized threats on private lands would include loss or 
alteration of habitat from agriculture, residential development, road 
construction, incompatible forest management, ORVs, fire suppression, 
and ditching or draining wetland breeding sites. As a result, we have 
determined that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of frosted flatwoods salamander habitat and range 
represents a moderate but significant threat to the species.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes
    Overutilization does not appear to be a threat to the frosted 
flatwoods salamander at this time. There is no evidence of a past or 
current problem with collection of this species. Consequently, we have 
determined that the factor of overutilization for commercial, 
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not a threat to 
the frosted flatwoods salamander at this time.
C. Disease or Predation
    Although disease has not been specifically documented in the 
frosted flatwoods salamander thus far, disease outbreaks with mass 
mortality in other species of salamanders indicate that disease may be 
a threat for this species as well (Daszak et al. 1999, p. 736). Whiles 
et al. (2004, p. 211) found a parasitic nematode (Hedruris siredonis, 
family Hedruridae) in larvae of the frosted flatwoods salamander from 
South Carolina and Florida. This parasite has been found in other 
ambystomatids and can cause individuals to become undersized and thin, 
thus reducing their fitness (Whiles et al. 2004, p. 212). The 
infestations

[[Page 6710]]

were not considered heavy and were probably not having a negative 
impact on the larvae studied; however, environmental degradation may 
change the dynamics between salamander populations and normally 
innocuous parasites (Whiles et al. 2004, p. 212). Ranaviruses in the 
family Iridoviridae and the amphibian chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium 
dendrobatidis) may be other potential threats, although the 
susceptibility of the frosted flatwoods salamander to these diseases is 
unknown. Ranaviruses have been responsible for die-offs of tiger 
salamanders throughout western North America and spotted salamanders 
(A. maculatum) in Maine (Daszak et al. 1999, p. 736). The amphibian 
chytrid fungus has been discovered and associated with mass mortality 
in tiger salamanders in southern Arizona and California, and the Santa 
Cruz long-toed salamander (A. macrodactylum croceum) (Vredenburg and 
Summers 2001, p. 151; Davidson et al. 2003, p. 601; Padgett-Flohr and 
Longcore 2005, p. 50). This fungus has been found at Fort Stewart 
Military Installation in Georgia, a locality where the frosted 
flatwoods salamander occurs (Mitchell 2002, p. 191-202). This disease 
has negatively impacted populations of other ambystomatid salamanders 
(A. macrodactylum croceum) (Vredenburg and Summers 2001, p. 151; 
Davidson et al. 2003, p. 601; Padgett-Flohr and Longcore 2005, p. 50), 
and it is likely to negatively impact frosted flatwoods salamander 
populations as well. This discussion of disease in other species of 
closely related salamanders indicates the potential existence of 
similar threats to frosted flatwoods salamander populations.
    Exposure to increased predation by fish is a threat to the frosted 
flatwoods salamander when isolated, seasonally ponded wetland breeding 
sites are changed to or connected to more permanent wetlands inhabited 
by fish species not typically found in temporary ponds. Red imported 
fire ants (Solenopsis invicta) are also potential predators of 
flatwoods salamanders, especially in disturbed areas. They have been 
seen in areas disturbed by the installation of drift fences at known 
frosted flatwoods salamander breeding sites (Palis 2008). Mortality of 
amphibians trapped at drift fences has occurred when fire ants were 
present and traps were not monitored with sufficient frequency (Palis 
et al. 2002, p. 6). The severity and magnitude of effects, as well as 
the long-term effect, of fire ants on frosted flatwoods salamander 
populations are currently unknown.
    In summary, diseases of amphibians in the southeastern United 
States remain largely unstudied. However, given the incidence of 
disease in species in the western United States that could be 
considered surrogates for flatwoods salamanders, the probability exists 
for similar infections to occur in frosted flatwoods salamander 
populations. We consider this to be a potential threat of moderate 
magnitude. Predation by fish is a historic threat that continues to be 
a localized problem when ditches, firebreaks, or vehicle ruts provide 
connections allowing the movement of fish from permanent water bodies 
into frosted flatwoods salamander breeding sites. Fire ants also have 
the potential of being a localized threat, particularly in disturbed 
areas. We consider these threats to be potential threats of moderate 
magnitude because 88 percent of frosted flatwoods salamander 
populations occur primarily on public lands where they are relatively 
protected from habitat destruction.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    Other than the National Forest Management Act and the Sikes Act, 
there are no existing regulatory mechanisms for the protection of the 
upland habitats where frosted flatwoods salamanders spend most of their 
lives. Refer to Factor D under ``Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species (Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander)'' for information on the 
threat of the Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms that also 
applies to frosted flatwoods salamander.
    Longleaf pine habitat management plans that provide conservation 
benefits to frosted flatwoods salamanders have been written for most of 
these sites. They include management plans for State- and Federally-
owned lands and integrated natural resource management plans (INRMPs) 
for Department of Defense lands. Most of the plans contain specific 
goals and objectives regarding habitat management, including prescribed 
burning, that would benefit frosted flatwoods salamanders if 
implemented. Multiple-use is the guiding principle on most of these 
public lands, however, and protection of the frosted flatwoods 
salamander may be just one of many management goals including timber 
production and military and recreational use.
    At the State and local levels, regulatory mechanisms are limited. 
The flatwoods salamander is listed as a threatened species in the State 
of Georgia (Jensen 1999, pp. 92-93). This designation protects the 
species by preventing its sale, purchase, or possession in Georgia and 
by prohibiting actions that cause direct mortality of the species or 
the destruction of its habitat on lands owned by the State of Georgia 
(Ozier 2008). However, there are no known frosted flatwoods salamander 
populations on lands owned by the State of Georgia. In 2001, the 
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) listed the 
flatwoods salamander (which includes the frosted flatwoods salamander) 
as a species of special concern (FFWCC 2007, p. 2) and prohibited 
direct take except through permit. As part of the listing process, a 
Statewide management plan was developed for the salamander in Florida 
(FFWCC 2001, p. 1-60); however, Florida regulations offer no protection 
against the most significant threat to the frosted flatwoods 
salamander--loss of habitat. In South Carolina, the flatwoods 
salamander is listed as endangered (South Carolina Department of 
Natural Resources 2008a). Prohibitions extend only to the direct take 
of the flatwoods salamander (South Carolina Department of Natural 
Resources 2008b). These regulations offer no protection against the 
most significant threat to the flatwoods salamander, which is loss of 
its habitat.
    In summary, although existing regulatory mechanisms provide little 
direct protection of frosted flatwoods salamanders (beyond the 
protections afforded by the Act), they do provide a degree of 
protection for the remaining occupied habitat, primarily on public 
lands. The record of management on public lands since the original 
listing of the flatwoods salamander in 1999 indicates that public 
agencies are actively pursuing longleaf pine ecosystem management 
programs that benefit the frosted flatwoods salamander. Frosted 
flatwoods salamander breeding sites on the three private land sites 
may, in some cases, come under the jurisdiction of the Corps (Refer to 
Factor D under ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (Reticulated 
Flatwoods Salamander)'' for discussion of section 404 of the Clean 
Water Act and regulatory wetlands), but most likely they are provided 
little regulatory protection. We have determined that the threat of 
inadequate existing regulatory mechanisms is primarily an ongoing 
threat of moderate magnitude.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
    Metapopulations are important to the long-term survival of 
temporary pond

[[Page 6711]]

breeding amphibians. Refer to Factor E under ``Summary of Factors 
Affecting the Species (Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander)'' for 
additional information on metapopulations. Of the 25 known frosted 
flatwoods salamanders populations, 16 (64 percent) are supported by 
more than one breeding pond and may be considered metapopulations. 
However, 36 percent (9 out of 25) of the known frosted flatwoods 
salamander populations that have only a single breeding pond, any one 
of the many threats that may render a breeding pond unsuitable could 
cause the extirpation of the affected population.
    Invasive plant species, such as cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), 
threaten to further degrade existing flatwoods habitat. Refer to Factor 
E under ``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (Reticulated 
Flatwoods Salamander)'' for additional information on invasive species 
and the threat they represent, which also applies to the frosted 
flatwoods salamander. Frosted flatwoods salamander habitat management 
plans will need to address threats posed by cogongrass and other 
invasive plant species and include strategies to control them.
    Pesticides (including herbicides) may pose a threat to amphibians, 
such as the frosted flatwoods salamander. Refer to Factor E under 
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (Reticulated Flatwoods 
Salamander)'' for additional information on pesticides and the threat 
they represent, which also applies to the frosted flatwoods salamander. 
However, herbicides may be a necessary tool to reduce or eliminate 
woody vegetation or invasive plants when the use of prescribed fire is 
not possible or effective (Jensen 2007, Wigley 2008). Nevertheless, 
pesticides should never be used in flatwoods salamander habitat unless 
no other habitat management tool is available; herbicide label 
directions should be followed closely and aerial spraying should not be 
used as an application technique. Under these conditions, we consider 
this threat to be of moderate magnitude.
    Studies of other ambystomatid species have demonstrated a decline 
in larval survival in the presence of predatory fish, as mentioned 
above under Factor C. One of the potential reasons for this decline may 
be the negative effect resulting from these fish competing with 
salamander larvae for invertebrate prey. The invertebrates found by 
Whiles et al. (2004, p. 212) in a study of larval frosted and 
reticulated flatwoods salamander gut contents are typical of freshwater 
habitats in the Southeast that do not contain predatory fish on a 
regular basis. The presence of predatory fish has a marked effect on 
invertebrate communities and alters prey availability for larval 
salamanders with the potential for negative effects on larval fitness 
and survival (Semlitsch 1987, p. 481). Wherever connections have been 
created between permanent water and frosted flatwoods salamander ponds, 
such as through installation of firebreaks or ditches, this threat from 
predatory fish exists.
    Studies of frosted flatwoods salamander populations, since the 
original species listing of flatwoods salamander as threatened (64 FR 
15691; April 1, 1999), have been limited due to drought. Data on the 
numbers of adults within existing populations do not exist. However, 
given the low number of individuals encountered even when breeding is 
verified, populations are likely to be very small at any given breeding 
site. Small populations are at increased threat of extirpation from 
natural processes (genetic isolation, inbreeding depression, and 
drought), as well as the manmade threats described above.
    In summary, a variety of natural or manmade factors historically or 
currently threaten, or have the potential to threaten, the frosted 
flatwoods salamander. The loss of metapopulation structure in the 
distribution of frosted flatwoods salamander populations was a range-
wide threat that caused historic losses of this species. It continues 
to be a current threat for 64 percent of the remaining frosted 
flatwoods salamander populations. Fire suppression and inadequate 
habitat management continue to cause the degradation of occupied sites, 
primarily on private land. Invasive plant species probably did not have 
much of a historic impact on salamander populations, but they are a 
range-wide current threat, and they are likely to become more 
widespread and difficult to control. Range-wide, low population 
densities have been a historic threat and continue to be a threat for 
most frosted flatwoods salamander populations, particularly due to past 
and current drought conditions, habitat loss, population fragmentation, 
and periodic reproductive failures that occur naturally in pond-
breeding amphibians. The impact that competing predators may have on 
the salamanders' prey base, and the threat of pesticide and herbicide 
use, are less clear as historic threats but remain potential localized 
threats for the species. Therefore, while we have determined that other 
natural and manmade factors, such as invasive species, pesticides, and 
competition for the species' prey base, may threaten the frosted 
flatwoods salamander, the severity and magnitude of these threats are 
not currently known. Acting in combination with threats listed above 
under Factors A through D, the threats under Factor E could increase 
the severity of the other threats.

Determination

    We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats 
to the frosted flatwoods salamander. In summary, the most significant 
historical threat to the frosted flatwoods salamander, as listed in 
Factor A (above), is loss of the majority of its habitat. A variety of 
localized threats (described under Factors A, C, D, and E) have the 
potential to impact the remaining frosted flatwoods salamander 
populations and habitat. These include--alterations in the hydrology of 
existing wetland breeding sites (including ``ditching'' which results 
in the introduction of predatory fish); incompatible forest management; 
ORV use; fire suppression; drought; and disease. The severity and 
magnitude of the threats under Factor E are not currently known. 
Nevertheless, we have determined that threats under this factor will 
exacerbate the effects of threats due to habitat loss and drought. As 
described in Factor E above, small populations are at increased threat 
of extirpation from natural processes (genetic isolation, inbreeding 
depression, and drought), as well as the manmade threats listed above. 
Finally, there are potential localized threats from fire ants, 
pesticides, and invasive plants for which the extent of impact is yet 
undeterminable, but that we believe are legitimate threats due to both 
their impact on surrogate species and their prevalence in the types of 
habitats used by this species.
    Only 25 frosted flatwoods salamander populations are known. Ten (40 
percent) of these populations are supported by only one breeding site. 
A population with only one breeding site has a tenuous future just 
given randomly varying environmental factors without considering the 
additional threats of habitat destruction and degradation that further 
threaten these populations.
    As noted previously, habitat with the range of the frosted 
flatwoods salamander is currently experiencing drought conditions. 
Palis et al. (2006, pp. 5-6) studied a frosted flatwoods population in 
Florida during a drought from 1999-2002. This study documented 3 
consecutive years of reproductive failure and a steady

[[Page 6712]]

decline in adult immigration to the site for breeding as the drought 
progressed.
    Catastrophic reproductive failure occurs even in healthy 
populations of pond-breeding amphibians. When it does occur, the 
modeling efforts of Taylor et al. (2005, p. 796) showed that each year 
of reproductive failure raises the threshold of survival required to 
achieve persistence and imposes the possibility of extirpation even 
under otherwise favorable environmental conditions. Taylor et al. 
(2005, p. 799) reminds us that particularly with small populations or 
low population growth rates (as exists with the frosted flatwoods 
salamander) effects of reproductive failure are made worse by 
demographic stochasticity. Even in populations with multiple breeding 
ponds, amphibian populations may be unable to recolonize areas after 
local extirpations due to their physiological constraints, relatively 
low mobility, and site fidelity (Blaustein et al. 1994, pp. 60, 67-68).
    For frosted flatwoods salamander, 40 percent of populations have 
only one breeding pond. If the habitat at that site is destroyed, 
recolonization would be impossible and the population supported by that 
breeding pond would be extirpated.
    Habitat loss on private lands is an imminent threat that is 
compounded by a variety of other factors. Fire suppression on private 
lands occupied by the frosted flatwoods salamander represents one of 
the biggest threats to the species' habitat and the continued existence 
of the species on these sites. However, 60 percent of frosted flatwoods 
salamander populations have an improved chance of surviving demographic 
and environmental stochasticity given that the distribution of breeding 
sites occurs within an adult salamander's dispersal distance.
    We believe that, when combining the effects of historical, current, 
and projected habitat loss and degradation, historical and ongoing 
drought, and the exacerbating effects of disease, predation, small 
population size, and isolation, the frosted flatwoods salamander 
continues to be likely to become an endangered species throughout all 
of its range within the foreseeable future. We believe these threats, 
particularly the threats to populations resulting from habitat 
degradation and fragmentation, small population size, and drought, are 
current and are projected to continue into the future. We have 
determined that these threats are operating on the species and its 
habitat with a moderate degree of magnitude throughout most of its 
range and with a moderate degree of severity, as discussed above.
    Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, 
we have determined that the preferred action is for the frosted 
flatwoods salamander to retain its status as a threatened species under 
the Act. Without the protection of the Act, significant management of 
threats would likely occur on public lands; however, there is still 
substantial risk of loss of ponds to drought and disease and, on 
private lands, a variety of potential threats (for example, 
introduction of fish, predation, pesticides), and imminent threats (for 
example, fire suppression, invasive species, and development). As 
discussed previously, declines resulting from drought can occur within 
only a few years. In the case of the frosted flatwoods salamander, 40 
percent of populations have only one breeding pond. If the habitat at 
that site is destroyed, recolonization would be impossible and the 
population supported by that breeding pond would be extirpated. This 
could occur within a few years given recurring drought conditions and 
existing threats. While not in immediate danger of extinction, the 
frosted flatwoods salamander is likely to become an endangered species 
in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range if the present trends that negatively affect the species, and 
its limited and restricted habitat, continue. Furthermore, because 
these threats to the species are of comparable magnitude and severity 
across all of the species' range, we have determined that an analysis 
of whether a specific portion of the range might require a different 
listing status is not warranted at this time.

Available Conservation Measures

    Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or 
threatened under the Act include recognition of the status, increased 
priority for research and conservation funding, recovery actions, 
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain 
activities. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and 
conservation actions by Federal, State, and local agencies; private 
organizations; and individuals. The Act provides for possible land 
acquisition and cooperation with the States, and for conservation 
actions to be carried out for listed species.
    Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to 
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as 
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if 
any is being designated. Regulations implementing this interagency 
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402. 
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that 
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in 
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. If a Federal 
action may affect a listed species or its critical habitat, the 
responsible Federal agency must consult with us under the provisions of 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act.
    Federal agency actions within the species habitat that may require 
consultation as described in the preceding paragraph include management 
and any other landscape altering activities on Federal lands 
administered by the Department of Defense, Fish and Wildlife Service, 
and U.S. Forest Service; issuance of section 404 Clean Water Act 
permits by the Corps; construction and management of gas pipeline and 
power line rights-of-way by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; 
and construction and maintenance of roads or highways by the Federal 
Highway Administration.
    The Act and its implementing regulations set forth a series of 
general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all endangered 
wildlife. The prohibitions, codified at 50 CFR 17.21 for endangered 
wildlife, in part, make it illegal for any person subject to the 
jurisdiction of the United States to take (includes harass, harm, 
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect; or to 
attempt any of these), import, export, ship in interstate commerce in 
the course of commercial activity, or sell or offer for sale in 
interstate or foreign commerce any listed species. It is also illegal 
to possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship any such wildlife 
that has been taken illegally. Certain exceptions apply to agents of 
the Service and State conservation agencies.
    We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities 
involving threatened or endangered wildlife species under certain 
circumstances. Regulations governing permits are codified at 50 CFR 
17.22 for endangered species. You may obtain permits for scientific 
purposes, to enhance the propagation or survival of the species, and 
for incidental take in connection with otherwise lawful activities.

Critical Habitat

Previous Federal Actions

    For information about previous Federal actions regarding 
designation of

[[Page 6713]]

critical habitat for flatwoods salamanders, see our proposed rule (73 
FR 47258) published on August 13, 2008. This notice included revisions 
to the proposed designation of critical habitat published in the 
Federal Register on February 7, 2007 (72 FR 5856), and announced the 
availability of our draft economic analysis of the proposed critical 
habitat designation (DEA). On September 18, 2008, we published a notice 
in the Federal Register (73 FR 54125) providing supplemental 
information on the status of the frosted flatwoods salamander. On 
October 8, 2008, we published a notice in the Federal Register which 
extended the public comment period on the proposed rule and provided 
the time, date, and location of our public hearing (73 FR 58922). We 
held a public hearing on October 22, 2008. The extended public comment 
period ended on November 3, 2008.

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    As stated above, since the proposed rule addressed both listing and 
critical habitat, comments received combined these two issues. 
Therefore, we are presenting the combined comments and responses for 
these issues, below.
    In the 2007 proposed rule, we requested written comments from the 
public on reasons why we should or should not designate critical 
habitat for the flatwoods salamander (72 FR 5856). We contacted 
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies; scientific 
organizations; and other interested parties, and invited them to 
comment on the proposed rule. We also issued press releases and 
published legal notices in the Jasper County Sun, Pensacola News 
Journal, The DeFuniak Springs Herald-Breeze, Savannah Morning News, 
Tallahassee Democrat, The Albany Herald, Miller County Liberal, The 
Berkeley Independent, The Florida Times-Union, The News Herald, and The 
Post and Courier newspapers. During the open public comment period, we 
received a request to hold a public hearing, however a public hearing 
was not held at that time. Due to new information that became available 
on threats to the flatwoods salamander and the reclassification in the 
taxonomy of the species, we asked for an extension of our court-ordered 
deadline on the designation of critical habitat for the flatwoods 
salamander to include the new information. Subsequently, a new proposed 
rule was written and published in the Federal Register on August 13, 
2008 (73 FR 4725).
    For the 2008 proposed rule, we requested written comments from the 
public on known or suspected threats to the frosted flatwoods 
salamander and the reticulated flatwoods salamander and any information 
on the need to change the status of either species; reasons why we 
should or should not designate critical habitat for the two species; 
and on the DEA (73 FR 47258). We contacted appropriate Federal, State, 
and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested 
parties, and invited them to comment on the proposed rule. We also 
issued press releases and published legal notices in the Jasper County 
Sun, Northwest Florida Daily News, Pensacola News Journal, Savannah 
Morning News, Tallahassee Democrat, The Albany Herald, The Berkeley 
Independent, The Florida Times-Union, The News Herald, and The Post and 
Courier newspapers. Based on a request received during the public 
comment period, we held a public hearing and information meeting on 
October 22, 2008, at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, Florida.
    During the comment period for the first proposed rule that opened 
on February 7, 2007, and closed on April 9, 2007, we received 23 
comments directly addressing the original proposed critical habitat 
designation: five from peer reviewers; three from Federal agencies; 
three from State agencies; and 12 from organizations or individuals. 
During the comment period for the second proposed rule that opened on 
August 13, 2008, and closed on November 3, 2008, we received 79 
comments directly addressing the reclassification in the listing of the 
flatwoods salamander into two species; the proposed designation of the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander as endangered; the maintenance of the 
listing of the frosted flatwoods salamander as threatened; the revised 
proposed critical habitat designation for the two species; and the DEA. 
Of these latter comments, 44 comments were received either in written 
form or through the portal at: http://www.regulations.gov; three of 
these were from Federal agencies, none were from State agencies, one 
was from a local government, and 40 were from organizations or 
individuals. Thirty-five of the 79 comments were made during the public 
hearing held on October 22, 2008; one of these was from a Federal 
agency, one was from a State agency, one was from a state senator, four 
were from local governments, and 28 were from organizations or 
individuals.
    The following summary statistics are provided on the 23 comments 
received on the 2007 proposed rule. In total, 7 commenters supported 
the designation of critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander, 3 
opposed the designation, and 13 were neutral regarding the designation. 
These following summary statistics are provided on the 79 comments 
received on the 2008 proposed rule. Nine commenters sent comments 
during the 2008 open comment period and also commented at the public 
hearing. An individual, group, or agency responding multiple times was 
only counted once as none of these commenters' opinions of the proposed 
rule differed between responses. In total, 33 commenters supported the 
proposed rule, 34 opposed the proposed rule, and 3 were neutral 
regarding the proposed rule. Comments received were grouped into 7 
general issues specifically relating to the subjects in the 2008 
proposed rule and the DEA, and are addressed in the following summary. 
We have incorporated comments into this final rule as appropriate.

Peer Review

    In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 
34270), and current Department of the Interior guidance, we solicited 
expert opinions for both the 2007 and 2008 proposed rules from five 
knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that included 
familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which the 
species occurs, and conservation biology principles. We received 
responses from all five of the peer reviewers on the 2007 proposed rule 
and from four of the five peer reviewers on the 2008 proposed rule. We 
reviewed all comments received from the peer reviewers for substantive 
issues and new information regarding flatwoods salamander critical 
habitat. We combined peer reviewer comments from both years. The peer 
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions and 
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions to 
improve the final critical habitat rule. Peer reviewer comments are 
addressed in the following summary and incorporated into the final rule 
as appropriate.
Peer Review Comments
    (1) Comment: Three of the peer reviewers emphasized the importance 
of the Eglin Air Force Base-Hurlburt Field metapopulation to the 
survival of the reticulated flatwoods salamander and questioned whether 
adequate habitat management, especially fire management, could be 
conducted if the highway proposed for the area was

[[Page 6714]]

approved (see also Comment 15). They discussed the inclusion or 
exclusion of military lands which have approved Integrated Natural 
Resource Management Plans (INRMPs), including these two sites as well 
as Navy Outlying Landing Field (NOLF) Holley (see also Comment 16). 
These peer reviewers were concerned about the finite period of the 
plans and the potential for decreased conservation efforts if INRMPs 
are revised when renewed. One peer reviewer recommended that NOLF 
Holley be included in critical habitat because the Navy's natural 
resources manager and forester had informed him that the Navy no longer 
had use for the field and that Santa Rosa County was interested in 
acquiring it. They concurred with the 2008 proposed rule (73 FR 47258) 
that included these military lands in proposed critical habitat.
    Our Response: Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin) has assured the Service 
that they ``will not allow negative impacts to the salamander habitat'' 
on the base (DoAF 2008a, p. 1). The Commander of Eglin stated that, 
``Eglin will ensure that the proposed Bypass road, and any actions 
associated with it, will not prevent implementation of the conservation 
measures identified in the INRMP for the flatwoods salamander'' (DoAF 
2008b, p. 1). The Service has reassessed the Eglin INRMP and determined 
that, with the Air Force's recent assurances, it will provide a 
conservation benefit for the reticulated flatwoods salamander. The 
Department of the Navy has assured the Service that the Navy has no 
intention of transferring ownership of NOLF Holley and the INRMP will 
continue to be implemented for this site as written (Department of the 
Navy 2008, p. 2). We conduct annual reviews of the INRMPs for all the 
military bases with known flatwoods salamander populations and reassess 
their conservation benefits and implementation. All the involved 
military bases have assured the Service of their future compliance with 
their INRMPs (see citations above). As a result of this analysis, 
Eglin, Hurlburt Field, and NOLF Holley have been removed from the final 
critical habitat designation for the reticulated flatwoods salamander.
    (2) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that the locality record used 
as the basis for proposed critical habitat unit RFS-5 is based on a 
poor quality photograph of a single larva collected in 1998 and that 
the larva in the photograph is likely a mole salamander (Ambystoma 
talpoideum). The site of the locality record and at least 100 other 
wetlands in the area have been surveyed since 2002 during suitable 
immigration and emigration periods. Many mole salamanders have been 
captured, but no reticulated flatwoods salamanders. It is the opinion 
of the peer reviewer that the original identification of the collected 
larva as a reticulated flatwoods salamander was in error.
    Our Response: We agree that there is no verifiable evidence that 
flatwoods salamanders occupy habitat represented by Unit RFS-5, as 
originally proposed. Therefore, this unit has been removed and the 
final critical habitat designation for the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander has been revised based on this comment.
    (3) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that habitat within proposed 
critical habitat unit FFS-2, located on Tate's Hell State Forest, is no 
longer suitable for the frosted flatwoods salamander. Since an adult 
flatwoods salamander was discovered there in 1998, hydrological 
restoration of the likely breeding site has been conducted and altered 
the site to a more permanently flooded wetland. Surveyors sampled the 
site in 2002, 2003, and 2004 but were unsuccessful in documenting any 
flatwoods salamander larvae within the wetland. The peer reviewer 
believes the wetland restoration project and the historically poor 
upland management of the area have resulted in the loss of flatwoods 
salamander habitat at this site on Tate's Hell State Forest.
    Our Response: Based on the peer reviewer's comment and the site 
visit information, we believe Unit FFS-10, as originally proposed, no 
longer contains the PCEs essential to the conservation of the flatwoods 
salamander. Therefore, this unit has been removed from the final 
critical habitat designation.
    (4) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that maps in the proposed 
rule are not sufficient for delineating actual boundaries of proposed 
critical habitat. The peer reviewer suggested using road or topographic 
maps and aerial photography.
    Our Response: The printing standards of the Federal Register are 
not compatible with using road or topographic maps and aerial 
photography. We constructed the critical habitat units using a 
Geographic Information System (GIS). The resulting critical habitat GIS 
shapefiles are available by request from the Mississippi Field Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). The shapefiles can be laid over 
other layers (aerial photography, roads) to get more precise locality 
information.
    (5) Comment: One peer reviewer stated that reticulated flatwoods 
salamander units in southwest Georgia (unit names in 2008 proposed rule 
(73 FR 47258; August 13, 2008) are RFS-10, subunits A and B, 
respectively) may have agricultural land that does not contain the 
primary constituent elements and should be removed.
    Our Response: The peer reviewer did not have access to our GIS data 
when we received this comment. When constructing the units in question, 
we used aerial photography to verify the presence of the primary 
constituent elements on the areas and that all agricultural land was 
excluded from RFS-10, subunits A and B.
Public Comments
General Biological Comments
    (6) Comment: One commenter cited studies which described flatwoods 
salamander breeding sites as roadside ditches and borrow pits, as well 
as natural habitats. This commenter believed that this shows the 
adaptability of the species and the likelihood that suitable breeding 
habitat could be created for the salamanders. Several commenters during 
the public hearing thought that flatwoods salamander habitat could be 
relocated or constructed elsewhere as an alternative to protecting the 
existing occupied sites through critical habitat designation. Other 
commenters at the public hearing stated that this was not possible, as 
flatwoods salamanders are tied to specific soils and forest-wetland 
types that need to be present in a landscape context. These commenters 
expressed support for protecting existing sites.
    Our Response: Flatwoods salamanders are known to breed in wetlands 
that dry on a seasonal basis. The Service is aware of records of 
flatwoods salamander larvae occurring in ditches and borrow pits. 
However, whether larvae were successful in developing into adult 
salamanders at these sites is unknown. The ponded breeding sites must 
hold water long enough and have a sufficient food source to allow 
salamander development and metamorphosis. They must also be free of 
predaceous fish and toxic substances. In addition, there are a number 
of biotic and abiotic factors that are likely essential for flatwoods 
salamanders at breeding sites that are currently unknown. Experimental 
relocations should be an action of last resort for these species and 
may be explored through the recovery process, if deemed necessary.
Adequacy and Extent of Critical Habitat
    (7) Comment: Two commenters stated that critical habitat 
designation on any

[[Page 6715]]

lands approved under the Sustainable Forestry Initiative and 
Sustainable Forestry Certification Program (SFI) is unnecessary and 
redundant (not warranted). These lands are already recognized as 
habitat for listed species under the certification program and 
participants in the program are required to safeguard and protect 
threatened and endangered species. Participants are expected to 
implement scientifically based management practices and adaptive 
management strategies as appropriate. Provisions of this program are 
not legally binding; however, participants must comply to stay in the 
program. Therefore, lands under SFI programs should not require special 
management considerations. The commenters believed designation would 
not significantly increase or contribute to the likelihood of recovery 
of the species because the vast majority of lands are either in public 
ownership or managed according to SFI standards. Therefore, the 
commenters asserted that critical habitat offers little or no 
additional management protection and no additional conservation 
benefit.
    Our Response: The criteria for designating sites as critical 
habitat are whether the sites provide the features essential for the 
conservation of the species and whether those features may require 
special management consideration or protection. Under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act, the Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if 
the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such 
areas as part of critical habitat. We also consider whether landowners 
having proposed critical habitat on their lands have developed any 
conservation plans for the area, or whether there are conservation 
partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion 
from, critical habitat. Included in this analysis would be whether or 
not conservation plans have species-specific management prescriptions, 
or other management approaches, that are coupled with assurances of 
implementation. The commenter presented a general statement about SFI 
programs. However, the Service did not receive any comments from 
specific private landowners within proposed critical habitat that 
identified themselves as participants in SFI programs nor did we 
receive any SFI conservation plans for analysis. Therefore, there is no 
new information indicating that removal of lands under SFI from 
critical habitat is warranted.
    (8) Comment: Several commenters stated that private land should be 
excluded from critical habitat designation. One commenter suggested 
that the Service should offer incentives, such as voluntary cooperative 
agreements as a conservation policy for private lands in lieu of 
critical habitat designation. These commenters stated that it would not 
be beneficial to flatwoods salamanders to designate critical habitat on 
private land since designation would be a disincentive for the 
landowners to continue conservation efforts for this species, would 
likely increase threats resulting in a net loss of conservation 
benefit, and eventually result in the extirpation of flatwoods 
salamanders on private lands.
    Our Response: Section 4 of the Act requires the Service to use the 
best available scientific data in designating critical habitat. Private 
lands are not exempted from this analysis. Flatwoods salamanders have 
been listed since 1999 and protection from ``take'' under section 9 has 
been in effect since that time. The Service knows of no situation where 
a private landowner has knowingly destroyed or mismanaged flatwoods 
salamander habitat as a result of this listing. Critical habitat only 
applies to those lands where there is a Federal nexus (a connection or 
link to the Federal government). In some cases, private lands may be 
affected if the landowner is undertaking a project that requires 
Federal funding or permit. However, the Service believes most 
application of the protection provided by critical habitat will not 
affect private lands. Programs are available to provide funds to 
private landowners for managing habitat for listed species, as well as 
permits that can be obtained to protect private landowners from the 
take prohibition when such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose 
of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Private 
landowners may contact their local Service field office to obtain 
information about these programs and permits.
    (9) Comment: Several commenters expressed concern about the 
potential for being prosecuted for adverse modification if private 
properties designated as critical habitat are fire suppressed. The 
commenter requested a definition for fire suppression and an 
explanation of practices related to fire suppression that would be 
problematic. The commenter requested that the Service offer emergency 
exemptions from adverse modification for human life or property.
    Our Response: At this time, the Service is unaware of any Federal 
actions that would leave a private landowner vulnerable to prosecution 
for adverse modification due to fire suppression. Federal actions 
related to fire suppression that might lead to adverse modification 
would include improper implementation of management plans on Federal 
lands. If suppression of a wildfire is necessary as an emergency 
Federal action relating to human health and safety within occupied 
habitat of a listed species or designated as critical habitat, an 
after-the-fact consultation can be conducted. Under the statutory 
provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse modification 
on the basis of whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal 
action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional to serve 
its intended conservation role for the species. However, when 
considering fire suppression as a threat, we refer to a Federal action 
which will lead to elimination of fire as a management tool and allow 
thick underbrush and mid-story to shade out the herbaceous ground 
cover. Fire suppression, in this sense, leads to deterioration of 
flatwoods salamander habitat quality and potentially adverse 
modification of critical habitat.
    (10) Comment: One commenter requested that the Service should 
consider a buffer width less than 1,475 feet (ft) (450 meters (m)) 
around known breeding ponds when defining and designating critical 
habitat units and stated that the designation of this distance was 
arbitrary because it was based on a different salamander species. The 
commenter suggested a 534 [sic] ft (164 m) buffer width as calculated 
by Semlitsch (1998, p. 1113). This commenter also references Palis et 
al. (2002, pp. 1-20) that is provided as support for a smaller buffer 
width around known flatwoods salamander breeding ponds. Another 
commenter disputed the scientific basis for rounding up the buffer 
radius to 1,500 ft (457 m) from 1,476 ft (450 m) when constructing 
critical habitat units. Several commenters requested that the buffer 
width used in calculating critical habitat units be increased to 5,576 
ft (1,700 m), since this is the maximum distance flatwoods salamanders 
have been reported to disperse and this would create connectivity 
between known occurrences.
    Our Response: Semlitsch (1998, p. 1113) combined movement data in 
five States for six species of ambystomatid salamanders, which had been 
collected over a period of several decades. Using these data, we 
generated a 538-ft (164-m) buffer width from a wetland's edge into the 
terrestrial habitat, which would create an area that he stated would 
encompass 95 percent of a population of one of these species. However, 
Semlitsch (1998, p. 1117) pointed out

[[Page 6716]]

that the values used in this calculation probably underestimate the 
actual buffer needed for some species of salamanders. In addition, he 
specifically mentioned the flatwoods salamander as one of the species 
that may require more habitat than the area created by using the 538-ft 
(164-m) buffer width (Semlitsch 1998, p. 1117). The Service selected a 
buffer width of 1,475 ft (450 m) from the Semlitsch (1998, p. 1115) 
paper to use for the flatwoods salamander calculation. This is the 
maximum value used in his calculations for the marbled salamander. We 
chose this species because it was recommended by researchers as a model 
for the flatwoods salamander due to its similar life history (Taylor et 
al. 2005, pp. 792) and because it uses habitat in a similar way. 
Although adult marbled salamanders occupy hardwood forests rather than 
pine forests, they breed underground and in temporary ponds. The 1,475 
ft (450 m) value corresponded well with data collected over 20 years by 
Means et al. (1996, p. 435) which described estimated movements of 
flatwoods salamanders of 984 ft (300 m) to 1,640 ft (500 m) between 
upland habitat and breeding ponds in relatively homogeneous habitat.
    The Service used the value of 1,476 ft (450 m) to estimate the size 
of activity areas used by flatwoods salamanders in the original listing 
rule. This value also was used originally in draft management 
guidelines for flatwoods salamanders that the Service wrote in 
conjunction with the flatwoods salamander recovery team. During review 
of these draft guidelines, several members of the recovery team (mainly 
foresters) felt that use of this value was unrealistic. They believed 
that it was unlikely that a forester in the field would measure such an 
uneven number. For ease of application, they believed an even number 
would be easier to work with in the field and recommended rounding the 
value up to 1,500 ft (457 m). The Service did not use the 5,576 ft 
(1,700 m) movement distance described in Ashton and Ashton (2005, p. 
65) to define the activity area for flatwoods salamanders because we 
consider this distance to represent the limit of the species dispersal. 
Therefore, the Service considered breeding sites within twice this 
distance (rounded to 2 mi (3.2 km)) to be considered part of the same 
metapopulation. Dr. Semlitsch was a peer reviewer of this proposed 
rule. In his review of the proposed rule, he stated that the distance 
the Service used to delineate the activity area around the breeding 
ponds is well-supported biologically in the literature and based on 
numerous studies of species in the same genus. Further, he also stated 
that connecting breeding sites within two miles of each other to 
protect dispersal habitat is also well-justified in the literature. He 
stated that neither value used in our calculations is too conservative 
or excessive, but rather an appropriate balance between the economics 
of land use and habitat protection. Palis et al. (2002, pp. 1-20) 
provides information on a declining flatwoods salamander population 
during a drought. A drift fence was set up enclosing the breeding site 
for this population and three partial drift fences were set into the 
uplands at 164, 328, and 656 ft (50, 100, and 200 m) from the pond-
upland edge. Only one individual provided one travel movement of 328 ft 
(100 m) from the uplands into the pond, during this 3-year study. 
Although this paper provides this movement datum of one individual 
during a drought, the Service does not believe it is conclusive enough 
to use in defining the activity area of flatwoods salamanders around 
breeding ponds.
    (11) Comment: One commenter questioned whether, when proposing 
critical habitat, we had taken into account wide-scale global climate 
change and the possibility of inbreeding or natural extinction in the 
many small, isolated populations of flatwoods salamanders.
    Our Response: Extinction is a natural process. Normally, new 
species develop through a process known as speciation at about the same 
rate that other species become extinct. However, because of air and 
water pollution, extensive deforestation, the loss of wetlands, and 
other human-induced impacts, extinctions are now occurring at a rate 
far exceeding the speciation rate. The purpose of the Act is to 
conserve endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems on which 
they depend. The Service has presented information on threats to the 
two species of flatwoods salamander elsewhere in this rule. We have no 
data supporting global climate change as a specific threat; however, 
flatwoods salamanders have been negatively affected by a recent long-
term drought. The many threats that face these species, including the 
possibility of inbreeding or natural extinction, highlight the 
importance of metapopulations. These threats were considered and we 
designated critical habitat for areas occupied by metapopulations 
whenever possible by providing habitat to connect occupied sites.
    (12) Comment: One commenter asked if we had population estimates 
for those populations whose habitat had been used to designate critical 
habitat. He questioned the use of presence-absence surveys as a basis 
for designating critical habitat, especially those areas where only one 
individual flatwoods salamander had been captured. Without population 
estimates, he did not believe we had sufficient population data to use 
as a basis for designating critical habitat.
    Our Response: Obtaining population estimates from wild populations 
of animals is frequently a difficult task. The two species of flatwoods 
salamander are widely distributed across the southeastern United 
States. Only a few of the populations have been studied in detail. Even 
in these populations, estimates of the number of salamanders at a site 
have not been possible. For a pond-breeding amphibian that lives 
underground for most of its life, the typical method used to monitor a 
population is to put a fence around a breeding site that captures the 
adult salamanders that come in to breed and the metamorphic salamanders 
and adults that leave the pond after the breeding event. At minimum, 
obtaining a population estimate using this technique needs to be 
repeated often enough to get values for the number of females breeding 
in the population, their annual survival and reproductive rates, 
survival of juvenile salamanders (especially the first year cohort) and 
the age at first reproduction for females. These values are not known 
for any flatwoods salamander population. It was impossible, due to 
constraints of time, money, and fluctuations in weather, to determine 
the number of individuals in extant populations for use in this rule. 
The capture of one larva at a particular location does not always 
indicate low numbers. In many cases, surveyors will simply stop 
surveying once an individual is documented in order to cover as many 
different locations as possible within a limited survey time period. 
The Act requires determinations of critical habitat to be based on the 
best scientific data available. In this case, data from presence-
absence surveys represent the best scientific data available and the 
Service used these data as a basis for designating critical habitat.
    (13) Comment: One commenter suggested that flatwoods salamanders 
may have adapted their lifestyle requirements to a different habitat 
than that which was designated as critical habitat. He stated that 
flatwoods salamanders may occur in other breeding habitats than 
ephemeral ponds and that these habitats have yet to be surveyed.
    Our Response: Researchers have been studying flatwoods salamanders 
for over

[[Page 6717]]

20 years and surveys have been conducted on the Apalachicola National 
Forest in Florida for more than 30 years. Herpetologists have also been 
studying other species of amphibians in the numerous wetland habitats 
of the southeast since at least the 1930s. No flatwoods salamander has 
ever been found outside of historical longleaf pine flatwoods or in 
wetland areas that do not dry on a cyclic basis.
    (14) Comment: One commenter asked about how we knew that breeding 
habitats were ephemeral ponds and not seasonally connected to other 
wetlands if we do not have long-term hydrologic data.
    Our Response: The Service used data from known flatwoods salamander 
localities to determine occupied areas. The locality data included 
descriptions of the habitat. The vegetation of ephemeral ponds is 
distinctive and researchers use it to distinguish between wetland 
habitat types. In addition, we used aerial photography to look at each 
area proposed for critical habitat and verify wetland type. Long-term 
hydrologic data are needed to determine a wetland's hydroperiod but are 
not necessary to discriminate an ephemeral pond. Under high water 
conditions, such as those resulting from a hurricane, ephemeral 
wetlands may become connected to other wetlands. However, under normal 
weather conditions, they are isolated from other water bodies.
    (15) Comment: Many commenters requested that habitat within Eglin 
Air Force Base and Hurlburt Field be removed from critical habitat, 
mainly due to a perception that designation of critical habitat would 
stop the construction of the Bypass Road proposed by the Northwest 
Florida Transportation Corridor on the southern property boundary of 
Eglin Air Force Base. Other commenters simply wrote in support of the 
Bypass Road construction without taking any position on any of the 
actions proposed in the rule. The Department of the Air Force's Eglin 
Air Force Base requested removal of the Base from critical habitat 
because they stated that their existing Integrated Natural Resource 
Management Plan (INRMP) is adequate, and they provided assurance that 
the proposed Bypass Road would not prevent them from implementing the 
INRMP. Many other commenters supported retaining Eglin and Hurlburt 
Field within critical habitat because of the vital importance of this 
area to the long-term survival of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. 
These commenters were concerned that habitat management of these areas 
proposed as critical habitat would not be possible if a road was 
constructed in the proposed location.
    Our Response: In 2007, the Service published a proposed rule 
designating critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander (72 FR 5856). 
Within this rule, Eglin was exempted from critical habitat because the 
Service considered the INRMP for the base to be adequate. After this 
rule was published, a threat became known to the Service which we 
considered to be serious enough to question the adequacy of Eglin's 
INRMP. This new threat was represented by a letter of conceptual 
approval provided by Eglin to the Northwest Florida Transportation 
Corridor Authority in October of 2007 for alignment of a road along the 
southern boundary of the base. The proposed alignment was adjacent or 
through most of the occupied reticulated flatwoods salamander habitat 
on Eglin and Hurlburt Field. Due to the threat posed by this road and 
Eglin's conceptual approval of it, the Service did not believe that 
Eglin's INRMP was adequate and habitat on Eglin and Hurlburt Field was 
included in the revised proposed critical habitat designation published 
in 2008. However, in comments received by the Service during the open 
comment period for this proposed rule, the Commander of Eglin stated, 
``Eglin will ensure the proposed Bypass road, and any actions 
associated with it, will not prevent implementation of the conservation 
measures identified in the INRMP for the flatwoods salamander'' (DoAF 
2008b, p. 1, see also response to Comment 1). As a result, Eglin and 
Hurlburt Field have been removed from the final critical habitat 
designation for the species.
    (16) Comment: The Department of the Navy has requested that Navy 
Outlying Landing Field (NOLF) Holley be removed from critical habitat 
designation. Reasons for removal included that: The INRMP covering NOLF 
Holley provides a conservation benefit to the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander, thereby making critical habitat designation unnecessary; 
the Navy currently has no plans to transfer ownership of NOLF Holley 
and intends to continue its stewardship of the salamander and its 
habitat; and NOLF Holley is required to meet current and future 
military mission needs and as such is considered necessary for national 
security. One commenter has requested that the Service retain NOLF 
Holley within the critical habitat designation due to its importance as 
the only habitat remaining in the area for the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander and the potential for transfer of ownership from the 
Department of the Navy to local developers.
    Our Response: In 2007, the Service published a proposed rule 
designating critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander (72 FR 5856). 
Within this rule, NOLF Holley was exempted from proposed critical 
habitat because the Service considered its INRMP to be adequate. After 
the proposed rule was published, the Service received information that 
the Navy was no longer using this field for military operations and 
discussions had been initiated with Santa Rosa County to transfer 
ownership of this property to the county. For this reason, NOLF Holley 
was included in the 2008 revised proposed rule (73 FR 47258). During 
the open comment period for the revised proposed rule, the Department 
of the Navy assured the Service ``that the Navy currently has no plans 
to transfer ownership of NOLF Holley (DoN 2008, p. 2, see also response 
to Comment 1). Further, it is the Navy's intent to continue its 
stewardship of the salamander and its habitat.'' Based on these 
comments, the Service has reassessed the benefit of their INRMP and 
concluded that it will continue to be implemented. Therefore, NOLF 
Holley has been exempted from the final critical habitat designation.
    (17) Comment: One commenter was concerned with the benefits of 
INRMPs for the DOD lands in Georgia, Fort Stewart Military Installation 
and Townsend Bombing Range. This commenter questioned whether the 
existing INRMPs would meet the standard of ``conservation,'' which 
would entail using all methods and procedures which would benefit the 
survival and recovery of the frosted flatwoods salamander. The 
commenter acknowledged that the Service has concluded that these two 
INRMPs have met this standard, but questions whether funding is 
sufficient to ensure conservation measures are implemented. The 
commenter stated that, at the very least, the Service should continue 
to review the INRMPs annually to ensure no projects, land use changes, 
or funding cuts are proposed that will threatened continued protection 
of the flatwoods salamander or its habitat.
    Our Response: The Service will continue to review all INRMPs for 
habitat occupied by both species of flatwoods salamander on an annual 
basis to ensure that there is certainty they will be implemented and 
that no projects or land use changes are proposed that are likely to 
jeopardize the continued existence of the frosted and reticulated 
flatwoods salamanders

[[Page 6718]]

or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their habitats. 
The Service has determined that conservation efforts identified in the 
existing INRMPs for the DOD lands in Georgia, Fort Stewart Military 
Installation and Townsend Bombing Range, will provide benefits to the 
frosted flatwoods salamander and the features essential to the species' 
conservation on these lands.
    (18) Comment: One commenter identified unoccupied habitat in the 
general area in the Apalachicola National Forest (ANF) that he believed 
has the primary constituent elements for the frosted flatwoods 
salamander but had not been proposed for critical habitat designation. 
In addition, the commenter stated that designating unoccupied habitat 
is an essential part of critical habitat for a species and needs to be 
included in the final critical habitat designation for the flatwoods 
salamander. The Service received comments from the ANF District Ranger 
supporting the proposed designation of critical habitat for both 
species of flatwoods salamander, including that portion of the 
designation within the boundaries of ANF and Osceola National Forest. 
In addition, the District Ranger has proposed to create ``salamander 
conservation areas'' as a part of amending the forest's land management 
plan. These areas would encompass proposed critical habitat and 
additional areas not known to be occupied by salamanders but appearing 
to have potential as flatwoods salamander habitat. These salamander 
conservation areas will expand to the existing compartment boundaries 
and provide more buffer area around known ponds, as well as unoccupied 
potential habitat referred to by the first commenter. This strategy 
will be implemented on the Osceola National Forest as well as ANF. 
Expanding conservation areas to the compartment boundaries will ensure 
that management of unoccupied areas will be conducted in the same 
manner as, and in conjunction with, those areas currently occupied and 
proposed for critical habitat.
    Our Response: We recognize the value of designating unoccupied 
habitat as critical habitat in certain situations. Based on the 
available information, we do not believe that designating unoccupied 
habitat for frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders provides 
conservation benefit to these species if it is separated from occupied 
habitat by an area of unsuitable habitat beyond the dispersal distance 
of the salamanders for two reasons: The likelihood of natural 
recolonization of these sites is nearly impossible (see also comment 
23), and we have determined that this unoccupied habitat and other 
areas not occupied at the time of listing not already included within 
this rule are not essential to the conservation of the species. The 
particular area referenced by the commenters has been combined with 
those designated as critical habitat into compartments that will be 
managed in their totality by ANF for conservation of the frosted 
flatwoods salamander. We will continue to work with the Forest staff to 
ensure conservation of the species and encourage management for 
``salamander conservation areas'' as outlined by the ANF.
    (19) Comment: One commenter stated that critical habitat, as 
proposed, will result in a fragmented landscape, with salamander 
occurrences existing as isolated islands cut off from other salamanders 
and from the ecosystem process that maintains habitat suitability. In 
addition, the commenter stated the purpose of critical habitat 
designation is to aid in the recovery of listed species, not simply to 
protect isolated individuals or occurrences within a fragmented and 
disturbed landscape. Several commenters from 2007 provided a general 
statement that they did not believe we were protecting enough acreage 
in critical habitat. One commenter asked for the inclusion of areas 
within Bay and Gulf Counties, in the critical habitat designation.
    Our Response: The longleaf pine ecosystem currently exists in the 
context of a fragmented landscape. The Service has connected occupied 
flatwoods salamander sites whenever it was possible, according to the 
method described above in Comment 10. In most cases, however, flatwoods 
salamander populations are separated from each other by large distances 
and unsuitable habitat that lacks the PCEs for the species. Surveys 
totaling hundreds of person-hours have been conducted to search for 
flatwoods salamanders and potential, unoccupied habitat across the 
range of both species. The degradation of the existing longleaf pine 
flatwoods has been extensive. Although new flatwoods salamander 
localities have been found over the past 15 years, most of these new 
sites were in the vicinity of known records on the larger public land 
bases. We believe the recovery of flatwoods salamanders is tied to 
management on these public lands, where the possibility exists of 
mimicking natural ecosystem processes through the use of prescribed 
fire. Outside of these public lands, landscape ecosystem processes have 
broken down and the potential for linking occupied flatwoods salamander 
sites by re-establishing longleaf flatwoods habitat on degraded sites 
is virtually non-existent. There is one historical record for flatwoods 
salamanders in Gulf County and no historical record for Bay County. 
There are no known flatwoods salamander populations in either county, 
no known occupied habitat, and no appropriate unoccupied habitat within 
an appropriate dispersal distance to allow for natural recolonization. 
Therefore, we designated no critical habitat in either Bay or Gulf 
Counties.
    (20) Comment: One commenter quoted the statement in the original 
listing rule analysis (64 FR 15691) that any potential benefit from a 
critical habitat designation would be offset by an increased level of 
vulnerability to collecting. The commenter inquired about whether the 
designation of critical habitat for the reticulated and frosted 
flatwoods salamanders was based on science or pressure from a lawsuit.
    Our Response: It is true that we reassessed the need for critical 
habitat based on a mediated settlement agreement (see ``Previous 
Federal Actions''). We reviewed the available data on collecting 
amphibians for the pet trade and on prosecutions for collecting 
endangered species, and could find no evidence of collecting as a 
threat to flatwoods salamanders. We reevaluated our original prudency 
determination and concluded it is prudent to designate critical habitat 
for the frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders. Based on the 
best scientific information, we are completing this designation under 
the requirements of the Act and in the best interest of the species, 
using the best scientific information available.
    (21) Comment: One commenter quoted a 2003 Government Accounting 
Office (GAO) report that recommended delaying critical habitat 
designations until recovery plans are developed. The commenter 
suggested that this recommendation should be followed and designation 
of critical habitat should be postponed.
    Our Response: The GAO report quoted by the commenter included 
recommendations to improve the process of designating critical habitat. 
The report provides recommendations. There have been no regulations 
promulgated requiring the completion of a recovery plan prior to 
designation of critical habitat for a listed species. In fact, the Act 
states that, to the maximum extent prudent and determinable, 
designation of critical habitat shall be made concurrently with a 
species' listing determination.
    (22) Comment: One commenter was under the impression that critical

[[Page 6719]]

habitat was based on ``potential, not exact situations.''
    Our Response: The Service assumes that the commenter is referring 
to flatwoods salamander occurrence data in this comment. All the 
localities used as the basis for designating critical habitat were 
occupied by either the frosted or reticulated flatwoods salamander at 
the time of listing or are currently occupied.
    (23) Comment: One commenter questioned why more critical habitat 
was not designated on Francis Marion National Forest (FMNF) and other 
public lands. The commenter urged the Service to work with the Forest 
Service to expand the critical habitat designation on FMNF.
    Our Response: The Service is designating all areas containing the 
primary constituent elements and occupied by flatwoods salamanders, on 
the FMNF and other public lands, as critical habitat. As we said in our 
response to Comment 18, we do not believe that designating unoccupied 
habitat for frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders provides 
conservation benefit to these species if it is separated from occupied 
habitat by an area of unsuitable habitat beyond the dispersal distance 
of the salamanders, because the likelihood of natural recolonization of 
these sites is nearly impossible.
Reclassifying the Listing of the Flatwoods Salamander Into Two Distinct 
Species
    (24) Comment: One commenter asked if the study that reported the 
split of the flatwoods salamander into two species had a thorough peer 
review and requested that the publication be presented to the public.
    Our Response: Pauly et al. (2007, p. 415) recognized two species of 
flatwoods salamanders in their publication in Molecular Ecology, a 
peer-reviewed journal; therefore, it did undergo a thorough peer-
review, as did the proposed rule. If a member of the public would like 
a copy of any of the literature cited, contact the Mississippi Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).
Listing Status of Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander
    (25) Comment: One commenter asked if the Service used population 
estimates to determine that the reticulated flatwoods salamander was 
endangered. The commenter did ``not believe that population decline can 
be derived solely from habitat decline due to both the adaptability and 
unpredictability of any species will to survive.'' In general, this 
commenter and several others believed that the Service does not have 
sufficient data to warrant listing this species as endangered. Many 
other commenters wrote in support of listing the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander as endangered.
    Our Response: There are no data available on numbers of individual 
salamanders within any flatwoods salamander population. However, we did 
not rely solely on declines of suitable habitat to determine the status 
of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. As required by the Act, we 
used the best scientific data available to verify existence of 
historical reticulated flatwoods salamander populations, new 
populations, and threats to populations. For example, of the 26 
historical localities for the reticulated flatwoods salamander, only 5 
(19 percent) were still occupied, primarily due to habitat loss and 
degradation. These data were collected during presence-absence surveys 
and during other field research unrelated to obtaining population 
estimates. New data received have been incorporated into this final 
rule where appropriate. There is no scientific basis for the assertion 
that flatwoods salamanders may have evolved different habitat and life 
history requirements from those currently described for the species.
    (26) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service had made a 
determination that the Bypass road on Eglin Air Force Base and Hurlburt 
Field would threaten the reticulated flatwoods salamander and that the 
proposed designation of the reticulated flatwoods salamander as 
endangered was done to stop the road. Other commenters stated that if 
we changed the designation of the reticulated flatwoods salamander to 
endangered status this would mean we had in effect said ``no'' to the 
Bypass road.
    Our Response: The determination to uplist the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander to endangered was based on the best available scientific 
data on its status and the existing and potential threats to the 
species. One of the threats we considered was the proposed Bypass road. 
The flatwoods salamander was originally listed as threatened under the 
Act in 1999 (64 FR 15691). The Bypass road, as currently envisioned, 
would be constructed across military lands that are Federal property. 
The authorization and permitting of this road represents a Federal 
action which would trigger consultation under section 7 of the Act 
since the flatwoods salamander is already listed. In addition, the 
proposed Bypass road crosses jurisdictional wetlands and this action 
will likely require a section 404 permit(s) per the Clean Water Act. 
Thus, since the road crosses Federal property and there are Federal 
permit issues, the effects on the salamander would need to be 
considered regardless of a change in listing status. In fact, the 
Service is in the very preliminary stages of an informal consultation 
on the Bypass road and, therefore, no final determination on the 
impacts of the Bypass to the flatwoods salamander has been made. In 
addition, in the event of an adverse modification or jeopardy 
determination, we would also explore measures to minimize the impacts 
of a proposed action.
    (27) Comment: One commenter inquired about whether the uplisting of 
the reticulated flatwoods salamander was based on science or pressure 
from a lawsuit.
    Our Response: The Service determined to uplist the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander based on the best scientific data available and 
not as a result of a lawsuit. For more information, refer above to 
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (Reticulated Flatwoods 
Salamander).''
Listing Status of Frosted Flatwoods Salamander
    (28) Comment: One commenter supported uplisting the frosted 
flatwoods salamander to endangered since there are only 26 [sic] known 
populations of this species, these populations occur in isolated clumps 
that could be extirpated by a localized drought, and none of the 
populations are grouped closely enough to be a metapopulation.
    Our Response: Most land occupied by the frosted flatwoods 
salamander (88 percent) is owned and managed by State and Federal 
agencies. The Service has worked closely with these agencies to ensure 
their management actions provide conservation benefits for the species. 
Drought is a problem; however, 64 percent of frosted flatwoods 
salamander populations are supported by more than one breeding pond and 
do function as metapopulations. Due to the active flatwoods salamander 
management on public lands and the existing metapopulation structure 
within the species' populations, we believe the frosted flatwoods 
salamander does not meet the criteria for listing as an endangered 
species. Further analysis is presented above under the section 
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Species (Frosted Flatwoods 
Salamander).''

[[Page 6720]]

Procedural and Legal Considerations
    (29) Comment: Many commenters requested that a second public 
hearing on the proposed rule be held in Okaloosa County, Florida, 
because this county is within the area where the proposed Eglin Bypass 
of the Northwest Florida Transportation Corridor is to be constructed. 
One commenter quoted a Northwest Florida Daily News article as saying a 
Service spokesperson stated that the decision to hold the public 
hearing in Pensacola was based on its being a central location of the 
salamander's range. Several commenters stated they did not receive 
sufficient notice of when and where the public hearing would be held. 
Several other commenters stated that the notice announcing the public 
hearing in the Federal Register was posted 14 days prior to the public 
hearing rather than 15 days prior to the hearing as required by Service 
guidance. One commenter stated that the process of providing 
information regarding the proposed rule and public hearing needs 
improvement.
    Our Response: A request was submitted to the Service by the 
Northwest Florida Transportation Corridor Authority on September 24, 
2008, for a public hearing with the suggestion that the hearing be held 
in Fort Walton Beach, Florida. A public hearing was held on October 22, 
2008, in Pensacola, Florida. It was announced in a press release that 
was submitted to over 200 newspapers in Florida, Georgia, and South 
Carolina on October 8, 2008. The press release was also sent to 
television stations and radio stations. The hearing announcement 
published in the Federal Register on October 8, 2008 (73 FR 58922). 
Announcement of the public hearing was mailed to Federal and State 
representatives in Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina; County 
Commissioners of occupied counties in these three States; other Federal 
and State agencies; conservation organizations and other non-
governmental organizations; special interest groups; and other 
interested parties. The Service also purchased legal notices in the 
following newspapers: Albany Herald, Northwest Florida Daily News, 
Jasper County Sun, The News Herald, The Post and Courier, Pensacola 
News Journal, Savannah Morning News, Tallahassee Democrat, and The 
Florida Times-Union. The Service placed the notice for the public 
hearing on public review in the Federal Register the day before it was 
published. As a result, the notice was available to the public for 15 
days before the hearing.
    The Service is not required to hold a requested public hearing in 
the exact location provided by the requestor. The Service selected 
Pensacola as the location for the public hearing because of its central 
location near major highways and an airport, to give the largest number 
of people the opportunity to attend. The location and schedule for the 
public hearing were selected to accommodate the general public, as well 
as the requestor of the public hearing, as much as possible. Pensacola 
is not central to the flatwoods salamander's range nor was this 
statement made in the Northwest Florida Daily News article.
    Section 4(b)(5) of the Endangered Species Act states, ``[w]ith 
respect to any regulation proposed by the Secretary to implement a 
determination, designation, or revision referred to in subsection 
(a)(1) or (3) [proposed or final rule to list a species as endangered 
or threatened, or proposed or final rule to designate any habitat of 
such species to be critical habitat], the Secretary shall * * * 
promptly hold one public hearing on the proposed regulation if any 
person files a request for such a hearing within 45 days after the date 
of publication of general notice.'' We have met the regulatory 
requirement.
    (30) Comment: One commenter stated that the notice in the Federal 
Register announcing the public hearing did not provide information on 
how to obtain reasonable accommodations and this is a violation of 
American Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements.
    Our Response: The notice in the Federal Register announcing the 
public hearing provided information on how to contact the Service for 
further information including the name, address, telephone number, and 
fax number of the Field Supervisor of the Mississippi Field Office; and 
the number of the Federal Information Relay Service to call if a 
telecommunications device for the deaf was required. We did not receive 
any requests for additional information regarding how to obtain 
reasonable accommodations for the public hearing.
    (31) Comment: One commenter stated that the notice in the Federal 
Register announcing the public hearing was not published in Okaloosa 
County's local newspaper, the Northwest Florida Daily News.
    Our Response: The public hearing notice was published in the 
Northwest Florida Daily News on October 10, 2008.
    (32) Comment: Several commenters suggested there may be members of 
the public that were denied their right to submit public comments 
because the online portal for submitting public comments at 
www.regulations.gov was inaccessible for approximately a week beginning 
on October 14, 2008.
    Our Response: The public comment submission portion of the online 
portal for this proposed rule was inaccessible during the time period 
from October 14, 2008, through October 22, 2008, due to an 
administrative error. This occurred because, although the comment 
period was extended to a date 2 weeks after the public hearing, this 
information did not immediately reach the portal controller. However, 
the problem was corrected as soon as the Service knew of it and the 
portal was operational until the end of the extended comment period on 
November 3, 2008. Comments could still be received by mail and this 
option was provided in the proposed rule and the supplemental 
information (73 FR 54125; September 18, 2008). In addition, because 
this online system is new, we still accepted comments provided by e-
mail, fax, or mail at our Washington office location or received at 
either the Mississippi or Panama City field offices until November 3, 
2008. All comments we received were considered in the preparation of 
this final rule. The comment period for the proposed rule was open for 
a total of 83 days, from August 13, 2008, to November 3, 2008. We 
believe this provided ample opportunity for the public to comment on 
the proposed rule.
Best Scientific Information
    (33) Comment: One commenter stated that the proper application of 
herbicides most commonly used in modern silviculture is unlikely to 
pose a risk to flatwoods salamanders or cause adverse modification of 
critical habitat. A peer reviewer from 2007 stated that habitat 
management to benefit flatwoods salamanders may require herbicide use 
in dry wetlands or at timber harvest or replanting to improve habitat 
conditions.
    Our Response: Herbicide use in dry wetlands or at timber harvest or 
re-planting may be compatible with habitat management to benefit 
flatwoods salamanders. When a property owner has developed management 
plans that include the use of herbicides at a site known to be occupied 
by flatwoods salamanders, we recommend coordination with the local 
Service field office covering the area. We still consider the use of 
herbicides as a threat due to the potential that improper application 
will result in toxicity to salamanders.
    (34) Comment: One commenter encouraged the Service to not overstate 
the role of modern forest management in

[[Page 6721]]

the historical loss and degradation of flatwoods salamander habitat.
    Our Response: We described many threats to flatwoods salamander 
habitat, both past and present. We agree with the commenter that clear-
cutting at the turn of the century was not done to standards of modern 
forestry and that many sites in plantation forestry have been converted 
from agricultural land rather than forested land. We do not believe 
conversion of native longleaf pine flatwoods to plantation forests is a 
significant threat to flatwoods salamanders at this time. Nevertheless, 
some aspects of modern forestry, such as use of site preparation 
techniques that remove stumps and alter or destroy below-ground soil 
structure (such as old root channels), continue to present a threat to 
flatwoods salamanders. We present further analysis above under 
``Summary of Factors Affecting the Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander.''
Economic Impacts and Economic Analysis (EA)
    (35) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service should 
consider the positive economic impacts of critical habitat designation. 
Designation of critical habitat provides support for maintaining 
healthy ecosystems which are the foundation of healthy economies.
    Response: As indicated in Section 1.3.3 of the EA: ``Rather than 
rely on economic measures, the Service believes that the direct 
benefits of the proposed rule are best expressed in biological terms 
that can be weighed against the expected cost impacts of the 
rulemaking.''
    (36) Comment: Several commenters stated that the draft EA failed to 
assess the potential economic impacts that could occur if the Bypass 
Road proposed by the Northwest Florida Transportation Corridor 
Authority is affected by the presence of critical habitat on Eglin Air 
Force Base (Unit RFS-4, Subunit C in the proposed rule). These comments 
generally argued that, by not considering the potential impacts to the 
proposed Bypass Road project, the EA understates the potential costs of 
designation. These commenters argued that the Bypass Road would: (1) 
Reduce congestion, (2) provide additional hurricane evacuation 
alternatives, (3) reduce highway traffic accidents, (4) increase 
homeland security, (5) improve energy distribution, (6) benefit small 
businesses, (7) allow access to the international airport opening in 
Bay County, and (8) substantially increase regional jobs and tax 
revenue. Lastly, several commenters express concerns that the Northwest 
Florida Transportation Corridor Authority (NWFTCA) was not a primary 
source of information for the EA.
    Response: In this final rule, areas within Eglin Air Force Base and 
Hurlburt Field have been removed from the critical habitat designation. 
Thus, this designation will not impact the proposed Bypass Road 
project. NWFTCA could not be reached to discuss these impacts prior to 
the public comment period, and thus was not included as a source in the 
draft EA (see Section 4.2.1.2). However, to provide greater context for 
this issue, the final EA describes the benefits that could result from 
construction of the Bypass Road. The final EA also presents the results 
of a technical memorandum by HDR/Decision Economics, Inc. (HDR), 
developed for the NWFTCA, that documents the potential costs of not 
constructing the Bypass Road.
    (37) Comment: Several commenters stated that the Service did not 
consider public lands in the EA of critical habitat designation.
    Response: The draft and final EAs do consider potential impacts to 
publicly owned lands. Specifically, Section 2 describes potential 
impacts to publicly owned timberlands, and Section 4 describes 
potential impacts to fire management and species management activities 
on these lands.
    (38) Comment: One commenter asked about the cost to taxpayers of 
elevating the reticulated flatwoods salamander to endangered status.
    Response: The purpose of the EA is to describe the potential 
economic and other impacts that could result from critical habitat 
designation (see Section 1). The EA is not intended to address the 
economic impact of a change in the status of a species. In addition, 
under the Endangered Species Act, the Service does not take into 
account the economic impacts of listing decisions, only the impact of 
critical habitat designation. Therefore, an EA of the effects of 
listing the reticulated flatwoods salamander as endangered has not been 
conducted.
    (39) Comment: One commenter stated that excluding Holley Outlying 
Landing Field could result in additional development in the area, which 
would be potentially damaging to the local economy. The commenter 
indicated that negative effects could include a flooded housing market, 
decreased housing values, or increased insurance rates from building in 
a hurricane prominent area.
    Response: As described in Section 3.2.1 of the final EA, the 
development analysis evaluates potential impacts to undeveloped land 
that is currently zoned for future rural, residential, industrial, or 
privately owned commercial development. Because Holley Outlying Landing 
Field is not currently zoned for development, the analysis assumes it 
will not be developed in the future without zoning changes. Absent 
available information on when or where such zoning changes may occur in 
future years, the analysis does not quantify either positive or 
negative impacts of any resulting development. The Final Rule exempts 
this area from the critical habitat designation.
    (40) Comment: One commenter stated that Section 3.2.2 of the EA 
unreasonably assumes that impacts to development activities occur only 
on parcels that contain wetlands within proposed critical habitat. This 
commenter stated that future consultations may lead to critical habitat 
considerations of parcels not containing wetlands. The commenter stated 
that the EA undervalues the potential for development to be precluded 
on uplands based on critical habitat designation.
    Response: Section 3 of the final EA provided estimates of impacts 
to any developable parcels that intersect wetlands. Historically, 
consultations have not occurred in areas without wetlands due to the 
lack of a Federal nexus (see Section 3.2). Note that the analysis does 
consider the potential impacts to development activities on the entire 
parcel, not just that portion that is wetland.
    (41) Comment: One commenter stated that input-output models should 
be used to estimate impacts on Federal lands to properly consider 
impacts to small businesses. This commenter stated that, absent such 
modeling, the report focuses only on private property values.
    Response: Section 1.2.2.2 of the EA indicates that input-output 
models may provide useful information about the scale and scope of 
localized economic impacts. For changes in activities on Federal lands 
designated as critical habitat, the Service does not anticipate 
regional economic impacts. Note that, although this final rule exempts 
Eglin Air Force Base from the designation, the final EA presents the 
results of HDR's regional EA of the proposed Bypass Road, developed for 
NWFTCA.
    (42) Comment: One commenter stated that the EA makes the invalid 
assumption that incremental impacts occur only in the migratory 
corridor areas, and that this assumption ignores the added review and 
protection afforded to lands designated as critical habitat that are 
not located in the migratory corridors. The commenter

[[Page 6722]]

also stated that there are other reasons for Federal consultation 
besides Corps permitting that have been ignored.
    Response: As noted in Section 3 of the final EA the only Federal 
nexus that could be identified within the proposed critical habitat 
areas is through Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which directs the 
Corps to permit dredge and fill activities in wetlands. Aside from 
additional administrative costs of section 7 consultations, the EA was 
unable to identify any added costs specifically related to the 
designation of critical habitat outside of the migratory corridors.
    (43) Comment: One commenter stated that Section 2.7 of the EA 
forecasts no section 7 consultations related to development activities.
    Response: Section 3 of the final EA estimates impacts to 
developable lands that intersect wetlands. However, available 
information does not allow forecasting of either the timing or 
frequency of development-related consultations in future years. Thus, 
while addressing the potential for a reduction in the option value of 
developable lands, the final EA does not estimate the cost of 
consultations associated with these activities.
    (44) Comment: One commenter stated that the EA does not estimate 
the impacts of possible future land-use changes and re-zonings that 
would accommodate greater levels of development.
    Response: As discussed in Section 3.2.1 of the final EA, available 
information does not allow forecasting of when and where any such re-
zonings may take place in future years.
    (45) Comment: One commenter stated that Section 3.2.1 of the EA 
makes the unreasonable assumption that existing residential, 
commercial, and industrial developments are unaffected by salamander 
conservation and are, therefore, removed from the analysis. The 
commenter also indicated that redevelopment in these areas may affect 
salamander habitat conservation efforts, particularly areas with 
extensive open space.
    Response: As stated in Section 3.2.1 of the draft EA, ``[b]ecause 
the threat to the salamander of development involves disturbance of 
soil structure and the removal of trees, existing residential, 
commercial, and industrial developments are assumed to be unaffected by 
salamander conservation and are therefore removed from the analysis 
according to available aerial photography.'' Based on this aerial 
photography, existing residential, commercial and industrial 
developments were excluded from the analysis; however, all currently 
open spaces were included in the analysis of developable acreage that 
may be affected by salamander conservation efforts.
    (46) Comment: One commenter stated that the EA undervalues the 
potential for development to be precluded on uplands based on critical 
habitat designation.
    Response: The EA identifies no Federal nexus that would cause the 
private owners of these acres to modify their behavior, as indicated in 
the introduction to Section 3 of the EA.
    (47) Comment: One commenter stated that Section 3.2.3 of the EA 
utilizes unreasonably low mitigation ratios, which do not accurately 
reflect current regulatory requirements or costs.
    Response: Section 3.2 of the EA quantifies the potential economic 
impacts to development activities under two scenarios. The low-end 
scenario uses a mitigation ratio based on past salamander consultations 
on development projects. The high-end scenario assumes development is 
entirely precluded. Therefore, we believe we have captured the entire 
possible range of economic impacts to development activities.
    (48) Comment: One commenter noted that Apalachicola National Forest 
has proposed an amendment to their Forest Plan which would provide a 
higher level of protection to the species. Particular changes include: 
(1) Creating ``salamander conservation areas'' that encompass proposed 
critical habitat and other areas offering high potential as flatwoods 
salamander habitat; (2) no conducting of extensive mechanical site 
preparation or other actions that cause significant soil disturbance 
within the primary and secondary zones; and (3) conducting harvests in 
such a manner that will minimize rutting and not alter hydrology within 
the primary and secondary zones.
    Response: This comment has been noted in the final EA, and costs 
related to developing the amendment have been incorporated into Section 
2 of the analysis. Based on written communication with National Forests 
in Florida on December 5, 2008, it is unlikely that the amendment will 
impose additional timber management costs in future years.

Comments From States

    Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the 
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt a 
regulation consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' We 
received no comments on the 2008 proposed rule from State agencies. We 
did receive comments from two State agency biologists, one employed by 
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the other by 
Georgia Department of Natural Resources; however, they were peer 
reviewers and their comments are addressed under that section. Comments 
were received on the 2007 proposed rule from the office of the 
governor, the State of Florida; the Florida Department of 
Transportation; and the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources.

Comments From States on 2007 Proposed Rule

    (49) Comment: The office of the governor, the State of Florida, 
provided the comment from the Office of Citizen Services that the 
information on designation of critical habitat was passed on to the 
Executive Director for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Commission.
    Our Response: We have noted these comments.
    (50) Comment: The Central Environmental Management Office provided 
comments on behalf of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). 
The commenter stated that a flatwoods salamander habitat evaluation 
model is used by FDOT to assess potential impacts to flatwoods 
salamander habitat as a result of construction activities on a project 
by project basis. So far, FDOT believed that this method had been 
successful as a means of coordination with the Service and developing 
approved avoidance and minimization measures. FDOT believed designation 
of critical habitat could affect future projects; however, they will 
continue to coordinate with the Service to avoid and minimize impacts 
to flatwoods salamander
    Our Response: We have noted these comments.
    (51) Comment: In comments on the 2007 proposed rule, the South 
Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) requested that the 
Service remove the Santee Coastal Reserve (SCR), Charleston County, 
South Carolina, from critical habitat designation. They provided a 
SCDNR Board approved management plan, dated September 13, 2002, which 
provided information on the flatwoods salamander and management 
recommendations derived from the final listing package for the species.
    Our Response: In 2007, SCDNR provided the Service with general 
information and management recommendations reworded from the ``no 
take'' guidelines presented in the original flatwoods salamander 
listing

[[Page 6723]]

rule from 1999. They did not provide a species-specific management plan 
for the flatwoods salamander, nor evidence that management actions have 
been implemented to benefit the species in the past, nor assurances 
that they will be conducted in the future. Prescribed fire is mentioned 
as an important component of habitat management for the flatwoods 
salamander; however, no specifics regarding the use of prescribed fire 
as a management tool are mentioned. The Service considers this a 
deficiency in the plan. The Service received no comments from SCDNR on 
the 2008 proposed rule. The Service does not believe the plan provided 
by SCDNR in 2007 provides benefits of excluding the SCR from critical 
habitat designation that outweigh the benefits of inclusion. Therefore, 
the Service is including SCR in the final critical habitat designation.

Summary of Changes From Proposed Rule

    In preparing this final listing rule and critical habitat 
designation for the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander, we reviewed and considered comments from the 
public on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the 
flatwoods salamander published on February 7, 2007 (72 FR 5856), and on 
the proposed determination of endangered status for the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander, proposed designation of critical habitat for the 
frosted flatwoods salamander and reticulated flatwoods salamander, and 
our announcement of the availability of the DEA published on August 13, 
2008 (73 FR 47258). We likewise reviewed and considered comments from 
our notice providing supplemental information on the status of the 
frosted flatwoods salamander published on September 18, 2008 (73 FR 
54125), and from the public hearing held on October 22, 2008. As a 
result of public comments and peer review, we made changes to our 
proposed designation of critical habitat for the frosted flatwoods 
salamander and reticulated flatwoods salamander resulting in a 
reduction of 3,205 acres (977 hectares). These changes are as follows:
    (1) We removed the unit containing occupied reticulated flatwoods 
salamander habitat on Navy Outlying Landing Field Holley, Santa Rosa 
County, Florida, because this area meets our criteria for exclusion 
(see Comment 16 and ``Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act'' for 
more information).
    (2) We removed the units containing occupied reticulated flatwoods 
salamander habitat on Eglin Air Force Base and Hurlburt Field, Okaloosa 
and Santa Rosa Counties, Florida, because these areas meet our criteria 
for exclusion (see Comment 15 and ``Application of Section 4(a)(3) of 
the Act'' for more information).
    (3) We removed the unit containing portions of Point Washington 
State Forest, Walton County, Florida, because the data on which the 
occupancy determination was based are considered to be in error (see 
Comment 2 for more information).
    (4) We removed the unit containing portions of Tate's Hell State 
Forest, Franklin County, Florida, because the habitat within this unit 
no longer contains the PCEs (see Comment 3 for more information).

Critical Habitat

    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (i) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) That may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (ii) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means the use 
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any 
endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the 
measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods 
and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities 
associated with scientific resources management such as research, 
census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, 
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the 
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem 
cannot otherwise be relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act 
through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, funding, 
or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat. Section 7 of the Act requires consultation on Federal actions 
that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat 
does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, 
reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does 
not allow government or public access to private lands. Such 
designation does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, 
or enhancement measures by the private landowner. Where a landowner 
seeks or requests Federal agency funding or authorization that may 
affect a listed species or critical habitat, the consultation 
requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the Act would apply.
    For inclusion in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within 
the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing must 
contain the physical and biological features that are essential to the 
conservation of the species, and be included only if those features may 
require special management consideration or protection. Critical 
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best 
scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life 
cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found those 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species). Under the Act, we can designate critical habitat in areas 
outside of the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it 
is listed only when we determine that those areas are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Further, our Policy on Information Standards Under the Act, published 
in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), and Section 515 
of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal 
Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) and our associated Information 
Quality Guidelines provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide 
guidance to ensure that our decisions represent the best scientific 
data available. They require our biologists, to the extent consistent 
with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to 
use primary and original sources of information as the basis for 
recommendations to designate critical habitat.
    When determining which areas should be designated as critical 
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the listing 
package for the species. Additional information sources may include the 
recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, 
conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status 
surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished 
materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge.

[[Page 6724]]

    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often 
dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. 
Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not 
include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to 
be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, 
critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the 
designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
    Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical 
habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation 
actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the 
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information 
at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects 
affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat 
areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, 
critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available 
information at the time of designation will not control the direction 
and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or 
other species conservation planning efforts if new information 
available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Methods

    As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific 
data available in determining areas that contain the features that are 
essential to the conservation of the frosted flatwoods salamander and 
the reticulated flatwoods salamander. This includes information from 
the proposed listing rule for the flatwoods salamander (62 FR 65787; 
December 16, 1997), final listing rule for the flatwoods salamander (64 
FR 15691; April 1, 1999), the previous proposed rule for designation of 
critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander (72 FR 5856; February 7, 
2007), site visits, soil and species map coverages, data compiled in 
the Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina Natural Heritage databases and 
individual State databases, and data supplied by Eglin Air Force Base, 
Fort Stewart Military Installation, Hurlburt Field, Townsend Bombing 
Range, Apalachicola National Forest, Francis Marion National Forest, 
and St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge.
    We also reviewed the available information pertaining to historical 
and current distribution, ecology, life history, and habitat 
requirements of the frosted flatwoods salamander and reticulated 
flatwoods salamander. This material included data in reports submitted 
by biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; research 
published in peer-reviewed scientific publications; museum records; 
technical reports and unpublished field observations by Service, State, 
and other experienced biologists; additional notes and communications 
with qualified biologists or experts; and regional Geographic 
Information System (GIS) coverages.
    All frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamander occurrence records 
for sites occupied at the time of listing and subsequently occupied 
sites (typically breeding ponds) were plotted on maps using ArcMap 
(Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer GIS 
program, as the initial step in generating critical habitat units. For 
purposes of determining occupancy at the time of listing, we have used 
the original data of listing of the combined species. Polygons were 
then computer-generated by overlaying these occurrence locations with 
circles of a 1,500-ft (457-m) radius as a method to estimate the 
activity area around a breeding pond (see 72 FR 5861 (February 7, 2007) 
for a further discussion of the rationale for choosing this distance 
for the activity area). The area circumscribed by a circle of this 
radius would be 162 ac (66 ha). These polygons were used as a starting 
point to delineate the amount of wetland and upland habitat occupied by 
salamanders at each occurrence.
    Since we have determined that breeding sites within 2 miles (3.2 
km) of each other could be considered part of the same metapopulation 
(see discussion above under section entitled Space for Individual and 
Population Growth and Normal Behavior), polygons within this distance 
of each other were combined to create areas containing multiple ponds 
connected by upland habitat corridors. Research on ambystomatid 
salamanders indicates that they need high terrestrial survival or 
immigration to persist (Taylor et al. 2005, p. 799). Thus, a flatwoods 
salamander population requires a sufficient amount of terrestrial 
habitat to ensure survival of adults in upland habitat, or, if needed, 
immigration of juveniles to the population from nearby breeding ponds. 
Combining polygons in the above manner provides a greater probability 
that habitat within a unit or subunit will support the needs of both 
species of flatwoods salamander long-term.
    After the polygons were constructed, they were overlaid on aerial 
photography. The aerial photography was analyzed to verify the 
occurrence of PCEs and their distribution within the polygons. In some 
cases, site visits were made to determine presence of PCEs. Some 
polygons were discarded as they lacked the PCEs. In other polygons, we 
adjusted individual unit boundaries based on the presence or absence of 
the PCEs. Units constructed by merging polygons were also re-assessed 
to be sure the connecting habitat contained the PCEs.

Primary Constituent Elements

    In accordance with Section 3(5)(A) of the Act and regulations at 40 
CFR 424.12, in determining which areas occupied at the time of listing 
to designate as critical habitat, we consider those physical and 
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species to be the primary constituent elements laid out in appropriate 
quantity and spatial arrangement for conservation of the species, and 
that may require special management considerations or protection.
    These include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal 
behavior;
    (2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or 
physiological requirements;
    (3) Cover or shelter;
    (4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) 
of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We derived the specific primary constituent elements required for 
the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander based on their biological needs.

Space for Individual and Population Growth and Normal Behavior

    The frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders are terrestrial 
species of the longleaf pine ecosystem. Flatwoods salamanders spend 
most of their lives underground and occur in forested habitat 
consisting of fire-maintained, open-canopied, flatwoods and savannas 
dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), with naturally occurring 
slash pine (P. elliotti) in wetter areas. Historically, fire-tolerant 
longleaf pine dominated the uplands, whereas slash pine, being less 
fire-tolerant, was confined principally to wetlands, wetland edges, and 
the wetter portions of pine flatwoods. Means et al. (1996, pp. 434-435) 
summarized the natural distribution of slash pine in reference to the 
flatwoods salamander and

[[Page 6725]]

concluded that natural slash pine habitats constituted only a minor 
fraction of the species' upland habitat. Much of the original flatwoods 
habitat has been converted to pine (often slash pine) plantations and 
become a closed-canopy forest unsuitable as habitat for the flatwoods 
salamander. Nevertheless, flatwoods salamanders do occur on some slash 
and loblolly pine (P. taeda) plantation sites. The extent of habitat 
degradation has been variable among pine plantations. On some 
plantations, the original hydrology, ground cover, and soil structure 
have been less severely altered, and these are the areas where remnant 
frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamander populations still occur.
    Pine flatwoods and savannas are typically characterized by low, 
flat topography, and relatively poorly drained, acidic, sandy soil that 
becomes seasonally saturated. In the past, this ecosystem was 
characterized by open pine woodlands maintained by frequent fires. 
Naturally ignited by lightning during spring and early summer, these 
flatwoods historically burned at intervals ranging from 1 to 4 years 
(Clewell 1989, p. 226). In some areas, such as southwest Georgia, the 
topography of pine flatwoods can vary from nearly flat to gently 
rolling hills. The ground cover of the pine flatwoods-savanna ecosystem 
is typically dominated by wiregrass in the Gulf Coastal Plain, which is 
often joined or replaced by dropseed in the Atlantic Coastal Plain. 
Many other herbaceous plants are found in the ground cover and plant 
diversity is usually very high.
    During the breeding season, adult frosted and reticulated flatwoods 
salamanders leave their subterranean retreats and migrate to breeding 
sites during rains associated with passing cold fronts. Throughout 
their range, the salamanders breed at ephemeral (seasonally flooded) 
isolated ponds (not connected to other water bodies) embedded within 
the mesic (moderate moisture) to intermediate-mesic flatwoods--savanna 
communities occupied by post-larval and adult salamanders (Palis and 
Means 2005, pp. 608-609). There are some variations in vegetation, 
geology, and soils among geographic areas within the range of the 
salamander (most notably, differences between the Gulf Coast and 
Atlantic Coastal Plain communities); however, basic characteristics are 
fairly similar throughout. Both forested uplands and isolated wetlands 
(see further discussion of isolated wetlands in section ``Sites for 
breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring,'' below) are needed 
to provide space for individual and population growth and normal 
behavior.
    The distance between the wetland breeding and upland terrestrial 
habitats of post-larval and adult salamanders can vary considerably. In 
the final listing rule the Service used an estimate of 1,476 ft (450 m) 
as the radius of a flatwoods salamander's principal activity area 
around a breeding pond based on research summarized in Semlitsch (1998, 
pp. 1115-1117) on this species and other species in its genus (U. S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service 1999, p. 15697). However, according to Ashton 
and Ashton (2005, p. 65), flatwoods salamanders have been documented up 
to 5,576 ft (1,700 m) from breeding ponds. We used this distance 
(rounding to 1 mile (1.6 km)) as the maximum dispersal distance for 
flatwoods salamanders. Therefore, breeding sites within twice this 
distance (2 miles (3.2 km)) could be considered in close enough 
proximity to be considered part of the same metapopulation (Palis 1997, 
p. 62).

Food, Water, Air, Light, or Other Nutritional or Physiological 
Requirements

    Post-larval frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders eat small 
invertebrates that share their underground habit. Records exist of 
earthworms that have been found in the stomachs of dissected adult 
salamanders (Goin 1950, p. 314). Larval flatwoods salamanders most 
likely prey on a variety of aquatic invertebrates and perhaps small 
vertebrates such as other amphibian larvae (Palis and Means 2005, p. 
608). Data from a recent study of larval food habits found that 
freshwater crustaceans dominated stomach contents of preserved, wild-
caught individuals from Florida and South Carolina (Whiles et al. 2004, 
p. 208). This indicates a preference for freshwater crustaceans or 
perhaps is an indication that these invertebrates are the most abundant 
or most easily captured prey in breeding ponds.
    Within the pine uplands, a diverse and abundant herbaceous layer 
consisting of native species is important to maintain the prey base for 
adult frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders. Wetland water 
quality is important to maintain the aquatic invertebrate fauna eaten 
by larval salamanders. An unpolluted wetland with water free of 
predaceous fish, sediment, pesticides, and the chemicals associated 
with road runoff, is important to maintain the aquatic invertebrate 
fauna eaten by larval salamanders.

Cover or Shelter

    At wetland sites, developing larval frosted and reticulated 
flatwoods salamanders hide in submerged herbaceous vegetation during 
the day (Palis and Means 2005, p. 608) as protection from predators. 
Thus, an abundant herbaceous community in these ponds is important for 
cover.
    Generally, flatwoods salamander breeding pond and upland habitats 
are separated by an ecotone (area of transitional habitat) through 
which salamanders must move during pre- and post-breeding events (Palis 
1997, p. 58). The graminaceous (grass-like) ecotone represents a 
distinct habitat type and is important for maintaining connectivity 
between aquatic and terrestrial habitats. When the ecotone provides 
cover and appropriate microclimatic conditions, survival of migratory 
salamanders is enhanced. Studies of migratory success in post-
metamorphic salamanders have demonstrated the importance of high levels 
of survival of these individuals to population maintenance and 
persistence (Rothermel 2004, pp. 1544-1545).
    Post-larval and adult frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders 
occupy upland flatwoods sites where they live underground in crayfish 
burrows, root channels, or burrows of their own making (Goin 1950, p. 
311; Neill 1951, p. 765; Mount 1975, pp. 98-99; Ashton and Ashton 2005, 
pp. 63, 65, 68-71). The occurrence of these below-ground habitats is 
dependent upon protection of the soil structure within flatwoods 
salamander terrestrial sites.

Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing of Offspring

    Adult frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders move from the 
uplands to breed in ponds that are typically acidic, tannin-stained, 
isolated, ephemeral wetlands (marsh-like depressions) (Palis 1997, pp. 
53, 58; Safer 2001, pp. 5, 12). Breeding occurs from late September to 
December when ponds flood due to rainy weather associated with cold 
fronts. If rainfall is insufficient to result in adequate pond 
flooding, breeding may not occur or, if larvae do develop, they may die 
before metamorphosis. Egg development from deposition to hatching 
occurs in approximately 2 weeks, but eggs do not hatch until they are 
inundated (Palis 1995, pp. 352, 353). Larval salamanders usually 
metamorphose in March or April after an 11-to-18-week larval period 
(Palis 1995, p. 352). Ponds dry shortly thereafter. A cycle of filling 
and drying is essential for maintaining the appropriate habitat 
conditions of these wetlands.

[[Page 6726]]

    The overstory within breeding ponds is typically dominated by pond-
cypress (Taxodium ascendens [=T. distichum var. imbricarium; Lickey and 
Walker 2002, p. 131)], blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora), and 
slash pine (Palis 1997, pp. 58, 59). An open midstory is often present 
as well, and dominant species include the myrtle-leaved holly (Illex 
myrtifolia) and other shrubs and small trees (Palis 1997, pp. 58, 59). 
When they are dry, breeding ponds burn naturally due to periodic 
wildfires, especially during late spring and summer. Depending on 
canopy closure and midstory, the herbaceous ground cover of breeding 
sites can vary considerably (Palis 1997, pp. 58, 59). However, 
flatwoods salamander larvae are typically found in those portions of 
breeding sites containing abundant herbaceous vegetation. The ground 
cover is dominated by graminaceous species. The floor of breeding sites 
generally consists of relatively firm mud with little or no peat. 
Burrows of crayfish (primarily genus Procambarus) are a common feature 
of flatwoods salamander breeding sites. Breeding sites are typically 
encircled by a bunchgrass-dominated (wiregrass or dropseed) 
graminaceous ecotone (see discussion of ecotone above). Small fish, 
such as pygmy sunfishes (Elassoma spp.), mosquitofish (Gambusia 
holbrookii), and banded sunfish (Enneacanthus obesus) may be present, 
but large predaceous species are absent (Palis 1997, pp. 58, 60).

Primary Constituent Elements for the Frosted Flatwoods Salamander and 
the Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander

    Within the geographical area we know to be occupied by the frosted 
flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods salamander, we must 
identify the PCEs that may require special management considerations or 
protections.
    Based on the needs of the species, as described above, and our 
current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the 
species, we have determined that the frosted flatwoods salamander and 
reticulated flatwoods salamander PCEs are:
    1. Breeding habitat. Small (generally less than 1 to 10 acres (ac) 
(less than 0.4 to 4.0 hectares (ha)), acidic, depressional standing 
bodies of fresh water (wetlands) that:
    (a) Are seasonally flooded by rainfall in late fall or early winter 
and dry in late spring or early summer;
    (b) Are geographically isolated from other water bodies;
    (c) Occur within pine flatwoods-savanna communities;
    (d) Are dominated by grasses and grass-like species in the ground 
layer and overstories of pond-cypress, blackgum, and slash pine;
    (e) Have a relatively open canopy, necessary to maintain the 
herbaceous component that serves as cover for flatwoods salamander 
larvae and their aquatic invertebrate prey; and
    (f) Typically have a burrowing crayfish fauna, but, due to periodic 
drying, the breeding ponds typically lack large, predatory fish (for 
example, Lepomis (sunfish), Micropterus (bass), Amia calva (bowfin)).
    2. Non-breeding habitat. Upland pine flatwoods-savanna habitat that 
is open, mesic woodland maintained by frequent fires and that:
    (a) Is within 1,500 ft (457 m) of adjacent and accessible breeding 
ponds;
    (b) Contains crayfish burrows or other underground habitat that the 
flatwoods salamander depends upon for food, shelter, and protection 
from the elements and predation;
    (c) Has an organic hardpan in the soil profile, which inhibits 
subsurface water penetration and typically results in moist soils with 
water often at or near the surface under normal conditions; and
    (d) Often have wiregrasses as the dominant grasses in abundant 
herbaceous ground cover, which supports the herbivorous invertebrates 
that serve as a food source for the flatwoods salamander.
    3. Dispersal habitat. Upland habitat areas between non-breeding and 
breeding habitat that allow for salamander movement between such sites 
and that is characterized by:
    (a) A mix of vegetation types representing a transition between 
wetland and upland vegetation (ecotone);
    (b) An open canopy and abundant native herbaceous species;
    (c) Moist soils as described in PCE 2; and
    (d) Subsurface structure, such as that created by deep litter cover 
or burrows, which provides shelter for salamanders during seasonal 
movements.
    This designation is designed for the conservation of the physical 
and biological features essential to the conservation of the species, 
which support the life-history functions of the species, through the 
identification of the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement of 
areas containing the PCEs. Even though per the Act, each unit must 
contain at least one or more PCEs, in this designation all units 
designated as critical habitat contain all of these PCEs and support 
multiple life processes.

Special Management Considerations or Protections

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the occupied 
areas contain the physical or biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, and whether these features may require 
special management considerations or protection. It is recognized that 
numerous activities in and adjacent to the unit designated as critical 
habitat, as described in this final rule, may affect one or more of the 
PCEs found in that unit. These activities include, but are not limited 
to, those listed in the Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' 
Standard (AMS) section as activities that may destroy or adversely 
modify critical habitat. Special management of the PCEs for the frosted 
flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods salamander and their 
habitat may be required for the following threats: Direct and indirect 
impacts of land use conversions, primarily urban development and 
conversion to agriculture and pine plantations; stump removal and other 
soil-disturbing activities which destroy the below-ground structure 
within forest soils; fire suppression and low fire frequencies; wetland 
destruction and degradation; and random effects of drought or floods. 
Specific details regarding these threats can be found in the proposed 
listing rule (62 FR 65787), the final listing rule (64 FR 15691), and 
above in the section entitled, ``Summary of Factors Affecting the 
Species.'' Due to one or more of the threats described above, and as 
discussed in more detail in the individual unit descriptions below, we 
find that all areas occupied at the time of listing that we are 
designating as critical habitat contain PCEs that may require special 
management considerations or protections to ensure the conservation of 
the frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

    We began our analysis by evaluating both species of flatwoods 
salamander in the context of their distribution within their historic 
range, to determine what portion of their range must be included to 
ensure conservation of both species. We assessed the critical life-
history components of flatwoods salamanders, as they relate to habitat. 
Flatwoods salamanders require small, acidic, depressional standing 
bodies of freshwater for breeding, upland pine flatwoods-savanna 
habitat that is open, mesic and maintained by fire for non-

[[Page 6727]]

breeding habitat, and ecotonal habitat areas between non-breeding and 
breeding habitat that allow for salamander movement. Therefore, all 
areas meeting these requirements were considered for inclusion.
    To determine which areas should be designated as critical habitat, 
we then evaluated where the necessary physical and biological features 
of flatwoods salamander habitat occur within areas occupied at the time 
of listing and for areas unoccupied at listing, whether these areas 
were essential to the conservation of the species. Detailed data on 
specific locations are included in the unit description in the Critical 
Habitat Designation section of this final rule. We considered the 
following criteria in the selection of areas that contain the essential 
features for the frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders and 
focused on designating units: (1) Throughout the current geographic and 
ecological distribution of the species; (2) that retain or provide for 
connectivity between breeding sites that allows for the continued 
existence of viable and essential metapopulations (populations at 
individual ponds that interbreed over time), despite fluctuations in 
the status of subpopulations; (3) that possess large continuous blocks 
of occupied habitat, representing source populations or unique 
ecological characteristics; and (4) that contain sufficient upland 
habitat around each breeding location to allow for sufficient survival 
and recruitment to maintain a breeding population over the long term.
    We selected areas for the frosted flatwoods salamander and the 
reticulated salamander that were occupied at the time of listing, based 
on the best scientific data available, which possess those physical and 
biological features essential to the conservation of the species that 
may require special management considerations or protection. In 
addition, we included two areas subsequently identified as occupied by 
the frosted flatwoods salamander and essential to the conservation of 
the species. We found that the two newer (post-listing) occurrence 
records were in close proximity to areas already known to support the 
frosted flatwoods salamander. We identified critical habitat units that 
were occupied at the time of listing based on: (1) Presence of the 
defined PCEs; (2) density of flatwoods salamander occurrences; and (3) 
kind, amount, and quality of habitat associated with those occurrences. 
We identified critical habitat units that were not occupied at the time 
of listing based on: (1) Density of flatwoods salamander occurrences; 
(2) kind, amount, and quality of habitat associated with those 
occurrences; and (3) a determination that these areas are essential to 
the conservation of the species.
    The currently occupied habitat of the frosted flatwoods salamander 
and the reticulated flatwoods salamander is highly localized and 
fragmented. Due to several drought events, post-listing observations of 
salamanders have been made at breeding ponds in only a small portion of 
their occupied range and no population estimates are currently 
available. As with many rare species, especially pond-breeding 
amphibians with underground adult life stages, detection probabilities 
are low even in ``normal'' weather years (Bailey et al. 2004, pp. 2463-
2464). Flatwoods salamanders are particularly susceptible to drought, 
as breeding cannot occur if breeding ponds do not receive adequate 
rainfall. We know that isolated populations, including those of the 
frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders, are highly susceptible 
to random events. Protection of a single, isolated, minimally viable 
population risks the extirpation or extinction of a species as a result 
of harsh environmental conditions, catastrophic events, or genetic 
deterioration over several generations (Kautz and Cox 2001, p. 59). To 
reduce the risk of extinction through these processes, it is important 
to establish multiple protected subpopulations across the landscape 
(Soul[eacute] and Simberloff 1986, pp. 25-35; Wiens 1996, pp. 73-74). 
We have determined that all but four of the areas occupied at the time 
of listing contain the features essential to the conservation of the 
species; as a result, these four areas were not part of the 
designation. The two units occupied since the time of listing are 
essential areas for the conservation of the species and were therefore 
included in the designation.
    We are designating critical habitat on lands that we have 
determined were occupied at the time of listing and that contain 
sufficient PCEs to support life-history functions essential for the 
conservation of the species. In addition, we are designating two areas 
that we have not been able to determine were occupied at the time of 
listing (they occur within the same geographical area but were 
discovered after 1999), and we believe to be essential to the 
conservation of the species.
    The lands designated as critical habitat collectively contain 
small, and in some cases, isolated, populations of the species. These 
small populations are at a high risk of extinction due to random events 
and human-induced threats, such as urban-agricultural development and 
habitat degradation due to fire suppression and hydrological 
alterations. Thus, we believe all lands within the critical habitat 
designation are essential for the persistence and conservation of the 
frosted flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods salamander, 
and meet the criteria as set forth above. We believe that with proper 
protection and management, the critical habitat within this 
designation, and those areas exempted due to the Sikes Act, are 
sufficient to provide for the conservation of the species. We are not 
designating any areas outside the geographical area presently occupied 
by these species because we are unaware of any other suitable habitat 
for these species outside their currently occupied range.
    When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final 
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as 
buildings, paved areas, and other structures that lack PCEs for frosted 
flatwoods salamander and the reticulated flatwoods salamander. The 
scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for publication 
within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of 
such developed areas. Any such structures, and the land under them, 
inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps 
of this rule have been excluded by text in this final rule and are not 
designated as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions involving 
these areas would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to 
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless 
the specific action would affect the primary constituent elements in 
the adjacent critical habitat.

Critical Habitat Designation

    For the reticulated flatwoods salamander, we are designating 8 
units, some of which are divided into subunits (for a total of 16 units 
and subunits), as critical habitat. For the frosted flatwoods 
salamander, we are designating 6 units, some of which are divided into 
subunits (for a total of 19 units and subunits), as critical habitat. 
The critical habitat areas we describe below constitute our current 
best assessment of areas that meet the definition of critical habitat 
for the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the frosted flatwoods 
salamander. We are presenting the data geographically from west to east 
and thus the critical habitat for the reticulated flatwoods salamander 
is described first below.

[[Page 6728]]

Table 1 shows the occupied units for the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander.

              Table 1--Occupancy of Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander (RFS) by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Currently
                                                         occupied (but
                 Unit                    Occupied at     not  occupied     Size of unit in acres (ac) (hectares
                                       time of listing     at time of                     (ha))
                                                            listing)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Florida Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFS-1................................               X   ...............  687 ac (278 ha).
RFS-2, Subunit A.....................               X   ...............  162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-2, Subunit B.....................               X   ...............  162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-3, Subunit A.....................               X   ...............  148 ac (60 ha).
RFS-3, Subunit B.....................               X   ...............  57 ac (23 ha).
RFS-6, Subunit A.....................               X   ...............  213 ac (86 ha).
RFS-6, Subunit B.....................               X   ...............  162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-7, Subunit A.....................               X   ...............  162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-7, Subunit B.....................               X   ...............  165 ac (67 ha).
RFS-8, Subunit A.....................               X   ...............  110 ac (45 ha).
RFS-8, Subunit B.....................               X   ...............  358 ac (145 ha).
RFS-8, Subunit C.....................               X   ...............  244 ac (99 ha).
RFS-9, Subunit A.....................               X   ...............  162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-9, Subunit B.....................               X   ...............  877 ac (355 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Georgia Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFS-10, Subunit A....................               X   ...............  162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-10, Subunit B....................               X   ...............  622 ac (252 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 2--Areas Determined To Meet the Definition of Critical Habitat for the Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander
                            but Were Exempted From Final Critical Habitat Designation
                                      [Totals may not sum due to rounding]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Area exempted from
           Geographic area               Definitional areas       final  designation             Reason
                                          acres (hectares)         acres (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOLF Holley.........................  289 (117)..............  289 (117)..............  INRMP.
                                     --------------------------------------------------
Eglin Air Force Base................  1,880 ac (761 ha)......  1,880 ac (761 ha)......  INRMP.
                                     --------------------------------------------------
Hurlburt Field......................  712 ac (288 ha)........  712 ac (288 ha)........  INRMP.
                                     --------------------------------------------------
    Total (Okaloosa and Santa Rosa    2,881 ac (1,166 ha)....  2,881 ac (1,166 ha)....
     counties, Florida).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 3 provides the approximate area encompassed within each 
critical habitat unit determined to meet the definition of critical 
habitat for the reticulated flatwoods salamander. Acre and hectare 
values were individually computer-generated using GIS software, rounded 
to nearest whole number, and then summed. Table 4 shows the occupied 
units for the frosted flatwoods salamander.

                                                         Table 3--Critical Habitat Units for the Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander (RFS)
                                                                             [Totals may not match due to rounding]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Subunit                      Federal ac (ha)                  State ac (ha)                   Local ac (ha)                  Private ac (ha)                  Total ac (ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Florida Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFS-1...........................  ..............................  466 ac (186 ha)...............  ..............................  221 ac (89 ha)................  687 ac (275 ha).
RFS-2, Subunit A................  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  162 ac (66 ha)................  162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-2, Subunit B................  ..............................  162 ac (66 ha)................  ..............................  ..............................  162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-3, Subunit A................  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  148 ac (60 ha)................  148 ac (60 ha).
RFS-3, Subunit B................  ..............................  ..............................  25 ac (10 ha).................  32 ac (13 ha).................  57 ac (23 ha).
RFS-6, Subunit A................  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  213 ac (86 ha)................  213 ac (86 ha).
RFS-6, Subunit B................  ..............................  162 ac (66 ha)................  ..............................  ..............................  162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-7, Subunit A................  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  162 ac (66 ha)................  162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-7, Subunit B................  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  165 ac (67 ha)................  165 ac (67 ha).
RFS-8, Subunit A................  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  110 ac (45 ha)................  110 ac (45 ha).
RFS-8, Subunit B................  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  358 ac (145 ha)...............  358 ac (145 ha).

[[Page 6729]]

 
RFS-8, Subunit C................  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  244 ac (99 ha)................  244 ac (99 ha).
RFS-9, Subunit A................  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  162 ac (66 ha)................  162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-9, Subunit B................  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  877 ac (355 ha)...............  877 ac (355 ha).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Georgia Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RFS-10, Subunit A...............  ..............................  162 ac (66 ha)................  ..............................  ..............................  162 ac (66 ha).
RFS-10, Subunit B...............  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  622 ac (252 ha)...............  622 ac (252 ha).
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  0 ac (0 ha)...................  952 ac (397 ha)...............  25 ac (10 ha).................  3,476 ac (1,396 ha)...........  4,453 ac (1,803 ha).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                Table 4--Occupancy of Frosted Flatwoods Salamander (FFS) by Critical Habitat Unit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Currently
                                                         occupied (but
                 Unit                    Occupied at     not  occupied       Size of unit in acres (hectares)
                                       time of listing     at time of
                                                            listing)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Florida Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS-1, Subunit A.....................               X   ...............  2,285 ac (925 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit B.....................               X   ...............  733 ac (296 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit C.....................               X   ...............  972 ac (393 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit D.....................               X   ...............  568 ac (230 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit E.....................               X   ...............  3,679 ac (1,489 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit F.....................               X   ...............  162 ac (66 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit G.....................               X   ...............  5,373 ac (2,175 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit H.....................  ...............               X   887 ac (359 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit I.....................  ...............               X   162 ac (66 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit J.....................               X   ...............  593 ac (240 ha).
FFS-3, Subunit A.....................               X   ...............  3,078 ac (1,245 ha).
FFS-3, Subunit B.....................               X   ...............  1,804 ac (730 ha).
FFS-3, Subunit C.....................               X   ...............  163 ac (66 ha).
FFS-4, Subunit A.....................               X   ...............  550 ac (223 ha).
FFS-4, Subunit B.....................               X   ...............  162 ac (66 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              South Carolina Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS-5, Subunit A.....................               X   ...............  154 ac (63 ha).
FFS-5, Subunit B.....................               X   ...............  183 ac (74 ha).
FFS-6................................               X   ...............  1,300 ac (526 ha).
FFS-7................................               X   ...............  162 ac (66 ha).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 5--Areas Determined to Meet the Definition of Critical Habitat for the Frosted Flatwoods Salamander But
                              Were Exempted From Final Critical Habitat Designation
                                      [Totals may not sum due to rounding]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Area exempted
                                               Definitional       from final
              Geographic area                   areas acres       designation                 Reason
                                                (hectares)     acres (hectares)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Stewart Military Installation.........     5,121 (2,072)     5,121 (2,072)  INRMP.
Townsend Bombing Range.....................          162 (66)          162 (66)  INRMP.
                                            ------------------------------------
    Total (Georgia)........................     5,283 (2,137)     5,283 (2,137)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 6 provides the approximate area encompassed within each 
critical habitat unit determined to meet the definition of critical 
habitat for the frosted flatwoods salamander. Acre and hectare values 
were individually computer-generated using GIS software, rounded to 
nearest whole number, and then summed.

[[Page 6730]]



                                                           Table 6--Critical Habitat Units for the Frosted Flatwoods Salamander (FFS)
                                                                             [Totals may not match due to rounding]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Subunit                      Federal ac (ha)                  State ac (ha)                   Local ac (ha)                  Private ac (ha)                  Total ac (ha)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Florida Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS-1, Subunit A................  1,976 ac (800 ha).............  ..............................  ..............................  309 ac (125 ha)...............  2,285 ac (925 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit B................  695 ac (281 ha)...............  ..............................  ..............................  38 ac (15 ha).................  733 ac (296 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit C................  972 ac (393 ha)...............  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  972 ac (393 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit D................  568 ac (230 ha)...............  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  568 ac (230 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit E................  3,473 ac (1,406 ha)...........  ..............................  ..............................  206 ac (83 ha)................  3,679 ac (1,489 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit F................  162 ac (66 ha)................  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  162 ac (66 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit G................  5,277 ac (2,136 ha)...........  ..............................  ..............................  96 ac (39 ha).................  5,373 ac (2,175 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit H................  861 ac (348 ha)...............  22 ac (9 ha)..................  ..............................  4 ac (2 ha)...................  887 ac (359 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit I................  162 ac (66 ha)................  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  162 ac (66 ha).
FFS-1, Subunit J................  593 ac (240 ha)...............  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  593 ac (240 ha).
FFS-3, Subunit A................  1,456 ac (589 ha).............  ..............................  ..............................  1,622 ac (656 ha).............  3,078 ac (1,245 ha).
FFS-3, Subunit B................  593 ac (240 ha)...............  ..............................  ..............................  1,211 ac (490 ha).............  1,804 ac (730 ha).
FFS-3, Subunit C................  ..............................  85 ac (34 ha).................  ..............................  78 ac (32 ha).................  163 ac (66 ha).
FFS-4, Subunit A................  550 ac (223 ha)...............  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  550 ac (223 ha).
FFS-4, Subunit B................  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  162 ac (66 ha)................  162 ac (66 ha).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      South Carolina Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FFS-5, Subunit A................  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  154 ac (62 ha)................  154 ac (62 ha).
FFS-5 Subunit B.................  ..............................  ..............................  ..............................  183 ac (74 ha)................  183 ac (74 ha).
FFS-6...........................  1,176 ac (476 ha).............  ..............................  ..............................  124 ac (50 ha)................  1,300 ac (526 ha).
FFS-7...........................  ..............................  162 ac (66 ha)................  ..............................  0.32 ac (0.13 ha).............  162 ac (66 ha).
                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  18,514 ac (7,494 ha)..........  269 ac (109 ha)...............  0 ac (0 ha)...................  4,187 ac (1,694 ha)...........  22,970 ac (9,297 ha).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We present brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat for the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander and the frosted flatwoods salamander below. Unit 
descriptions are presented separately by species. All threats apply 
equally to all PCEs in each unit description.

Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander (RFS)

Unit RFS-1
    Unit RFS-1 encompasses 687 ac (278 ha) in Santa Rosa County, 
Florida. Within this unit, 466 ac (189 ha) consist of State land in the 
Garcon Point Water Management Area managed by the Northwest Florida 
Water Management District (NWFLWMD) and in the Yellow River Marsh State 
Buffer Preserve (YRMSBP); 221 ac (89 ha) are in private ownership. Unit 
RFS-1 is bisected by Hwy. 191 and occurs within an extensive wet 
prairie. Since the majority of this unit, which was occupied at the 
time of listing, is owned by NWFLWMD and YRMSBP, it is likely protected 
from most agricultural and urban development. Threats to reticulated 
flatwoods salamander habitat that may require special management of the 
PCEs include potential fire suppression and potential hydrologic 
changes resulting from the adjacent highway that could alter the 
ecological functioning of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial 
habitat. Ditches associated with highways can drain water from a site 
and result in ponds with shorter hydroperiods and drier terrestrial 
habitat. Alternatively, ditches can connect isolated wetlands with 
permanent water sites that increase the hydroperiod of ponds and 
facilitate the introduction of predaceous fish into breeding ponds. In 
addition, run-off from highways can introduce toxic chemicals into 
breeding sites. All lands designated as critical habitat contain all 
PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander life 
processes.
Unit RFS-2
    Unit RFS-2 is comprised of two subunits encompassing 324 ac (131 
ha) in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Within this unit, which was occupied 
at the time of listing, there are 162 ac (66 ha) on State land managed 
by NWFLWMD and Blackwater River State Forest (BRSF); and 162 ac (66 ha) 
are in private ownership.
Subunit A
    Unit RFS-2, Subunit A encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on private land in 
Santa Rosa County, Florida. This subunit is located northeast of 
Milton, Florida. Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and 
its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include 
agricultural and urban development, potential detrimental alterations 
in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil 
structure, potential hydrological alterations to the habitat, and the 
potential for fire suppression. All lands designated as critical 
habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods 
salamander life processes.
Subunit B
    Unit RFS-2, Subunit B encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) in Santa Rosa 
County, Florida. Within this unit, there are 32 ac (13 ha) on State 
land managed by NWFLWMD and 130 ac (53 ha) on State land managed by 
BRSF. This subunit is located south of Interstate 10 and near the Santa 
Rosa-Okaloosa County border. A small county road bisects the unit and a 
power line crosses the eastern edge of the breeding pond. Threats to 
the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require 
special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire 
suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices 
that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential 
hydrologic changes resulting from the road and power line that could 
alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial 
habitat. In addition, run-off from highways can introduce toxic 
chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as critical habitat 
contain all PCEs and support

[[Page 6731]]

multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander life processes.
Unit RFS-3
    Unit RFS-3 is comprised of two subunits encompassing 205 ac (83 ha) 
in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Within this unit, which was occupied at 
the time of listing, 180 ac (73 ha) are on private land and 25 ac (10 
ha) are on property owned by the Santa Rosa County School Board.
Subunit A
    Unit RFS-3, Subunit A encompasses 148 ac (60 ha) on private land in 
Santa Rosa County, Florida. This subunit is located near a rapidly 
developing section of Federal Hwy. 98 between Navarre and Gulf Breeze, 
Florida. Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its 
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the 
potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in 
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soils structure, 
potential hydrologic changes resulting from the highway that could 
alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial 
habitat, and potential habitat destruction due to urban and commercial 
development nearby. All lands designated as critical habitat contain 
all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander life 
processes.
Subunit B
    Unit RFS-3, Subunit B encompasses 57 ac (23 ha) in Santa Rosa 
County, Florida. This subunit is located near a rapidly developing 
section of U.S. Hwy. 98 between Navarre and Gulf Breeze, Florida. 
Within this subunit, 32 ac (13 ha) are on private land and 25 ac (10 
ha) are on property owned by the Santa Rosa County School Board. 
Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander habitat that may 
require special management of the existing PCEs include the potential 
for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry 
practices that could destroy the below-ground soils structure, 
potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could 
alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial 
habitat, and future habitat destruction due to urban and commercial 
development. All lands designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs 
and support multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander life processes.
Unit RFS-6
    Unit RFS-6 is composed of two subunits encompassing 375 ac (152 ha) 
in Walton and Washington Counties, Florida. Within this unit (which was 
occupied at the time of listing), 213 ac (86 ha) are on private land in 
Walton County, Florida, and 162 ac (66 ha) are located on Pine Log 
State Forest (managed by the State of Florida's Division of Forestry) 
in Washington County, Florida.
Subunit A
    Unit RFS-6, Subunit A encompasses 213 ac (86 ha) on private land in 
Walton County, Florida. This subunit is bisected by State Hwy. 81 near 
Bruce, Florida. Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its 
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the 
potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in 
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, 
potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could 
alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial 
habitat, and future habitat destruction due to urban and commercial 
development. In addition, run-off from highways can introduce toxic 
chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as critical habitat 
contain all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander 
life processes.
Subunit B
    Unit RFS-6, Subunit B encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on Pine Log State 
Forest (managed by the State of Florida's Division of Forestry) in 
Washington County, Florida. Since the lands located within this subunit 
are owned by the State of Florida, they are likely protected from 
direct agricultural and urban development; however, threats remain to 
the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require 
special management of the PCEs. They include the potential for fire 
suppression and potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices 
that could destroy the below-ground soil structure. All lands 
designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple 
reticulated flatwoods salamander life processes.
Unit RFS-7
    Unit RFS-7, which was occupied at the time of listing, is comprised 
of two subunits encompassing 327 ac (132 ha) on private land in Holmes 
and Washington Counties, Florida.
Subunit A
    Unit RFS-7, Subunit A encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on private land in 
Holmes County, Florida. This subunit is located approximately 2 mi (3.2 
km) east of State Hwy. 79 and approximately 5.5 mi (8.8 km) north of 
Bonifay, Florida. Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and 
its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the 
potential for fire suppression, potential expansion of agriculture into 
the unit, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that 
could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic 
changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of 
the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands 
designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple 
reticulated flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit B
    Unit RFS-7, Subunit B encompasses 165 ac (67 ha) on private land in 
Washington County, Florida. This subunit is located less than a mile 
(1.6 km) northwest of State Hwy. 79 and approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) 
west of Vernon, Florida. Threats to the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the 
PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential expansion of 
agriculture into the unit, potential detrimental alterations in 
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, 
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that 
could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding 
terrestrial habitat. All lands designated as critical habitat contain 
all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander life 
processes.
Unit RFS-8
    Unit RFS-8, which was occupied at the time of listing, is composed 
of three subunits encompassing 712 ac (288 ha) on private land in 
Jackson County, Florida.
Subunit A
    Unit RFS-8, Subunit A encompasses 110 ac (45 ha) on private land in 
western Jackson County, Florida near the Jackson-Washington County 
line. This subunit is located just south of U.S. Hwy. 90 and west of 
State Hwy. 231 approximately 10 mi (16 km) west of Marianna, Florida. 
Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its habitat that 
may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for 
fire suppression, potential expansion of agriculture and residential 
development into the unit, potential detrimental alterations in 
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, 
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that 
could alter the

[[Page 6732]]

ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. In 
addition, run-off from highways can introduce toxic chemicals into 
breeding sites. All lands designated as critical habitat contain all 
PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander life 
processes.
Subunit B
    Unit RFS-8, Subunit B encompasses 358 ac (145 ha) on private land 
in Jackson County, Florida. This subunit is located just east of State 
Hwy. 71 and south of U.S. Hwy. 90, between Old Spanish Trail and the 
CSX railroad. This locality is approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) southeast of 
Marianna, Florida. Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and 
its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the 
potential for fire suppression, potential expansion of agriculture and 
residential development into the unit, potential detrimental 
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground 
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from 
adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and 
surrounding terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off from highways can 
introduce toxic chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as 
critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple reticulated 
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit C
    Unit RFS-8, Subunit C encompasses 244 ac (99 ha) on private land in 
Jackson County, Florida. This currently occupied subunit is bisected by 
State Hwy. 275 south of Interstate 10 near Wolf Slough. Threats to the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require 
special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire 
suppression, potential expansion of agriculture and residential 
development into the unit, potential detrimental alterations in 
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, 
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that 
could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding 
terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off from highways can introduce 
toxic chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as critical 
habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods 
salamander life processes.
Unit RFS-9
    Unit RFS-9, which was occupied at the time of listing, is comprised 
of two subunits encompassing 1,039 ac (421 ha) on private land in 
Calhoun County, Florida.
Subunit A
    Unit RFS-9, Subunit A encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on private land in 
Calhoun County, Florida. This subunit is bisected by an unnamed road 
near Broad Branch, is approximately 2.5 mi (4 km) west of State Hwy. 
73, and is approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) west of Kinard, Florida. Threats 
to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may 
require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire 
suppression, potential expansion of agriculture and residential 
development into the unit, potential detrimental alterations in 
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, 
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that 
could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding 
terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off from highways can introduce 
toxic chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as critical 
habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods 
salamander life processes.
Subunit B
    Unit RFS-9, Subunit B encompasses 877 ac (355 ha) on private land 
in Calhoun County, Florida. This subunit is bisected by an unnamed road 
running east of and parallel to State Hwy. 71, and is located 
approximately 13 mi (20.8 km) south of Scotts Ferry, Florida. Threats 
to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may 
require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire 
suppression, potential expansion of agriculture and residential 
development into the unit, potential detrimental alterations in 
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, 
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that 
could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding 
terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off from highways can introduce 
toxic chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as critical 
habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods 
salamander life processes.
Unit RFS-10
    Unit RFS-10, which was occupied at the time of listing, is 
comprised of two subunits encompassing 784 ac (317 ha) in Baker and 
Miller counties, Georgia. Within RFS-10, 162 ac (66 ha) are located on 
Mayhaw Wildlife Management Area (managed by the State of Georgia) in 
Miller County, Georgia, and 622 ac (252 ha) are located on private land 
adjacent to, and running south of, State Highway 200 in southwestern 
Baker County, Georgia.
Subunit A
    Unit RFS-10, Subunit A encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on Mayhaw 
Wildlife Management Area (managed by the State of Georgia) in Miller 
County, Georgia. Since this subunit is owned by the State of Georgia, 
it is likely protected from most agricultural and urban development 
(Ozier 2008). Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and its 
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the 
potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in 
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, 
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and 
roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding 
terrestrial habitat. All lands designated as critical habitat contain 
all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods salamander life 
processes.
Subunit B
    Unit RFS-10, Subunit B encompasses 622 ac (252 ha) on private land 
adjacent to, and south of, State Highway 200 in southwestern Baker 
County, Georgia. Threats to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and 
its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the 
potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in 
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, 
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and 
roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding 
terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off from highways can introduce 
toxic chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as critical 
habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple reticulated flatwoods 
salamander life processes.

Frosted Flatwoods Salamander (FFS)

Unit FFS-1
    Unit FFS-1 is comprised of 10 subunits in Liberty and Franklin 
Counties, Florida. These subunits are comprised primarily of U.S. 
Forest Service land lying within the Apalachicola National Forest. The 
combined acreage of these subunits is 15,414 ac (6,238 ha). Of these 
acres, 14,614 ac (5,914 ha) are on the Apalachicola National Forest, 22 
ac (9 ha) are under State management, and 778 ac (315 ha) are in 
private

[[Page 6733]]

ownership. Subunits A through G and subunit J (14,365 ac (5,813 ha)) 
were occupied at the time of listing and are currently occupied; 
subunits H and I (1,049 ac (425 ha)) were not occupied at the time of 
listing, but are currently occupied.
Subunit A
    Unit FFS-1, Subunit A encompasses 2,285 ac (925 ha) in Liberty 
County, Florida. Within this subunit, 1,976 ac (800 ha) are in the 
Apalachicola National Forest and 309 ac (125 ha) are in private 
ownership. Lands within this subunit owned by the U.S. Forest Service 
are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development; 
however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods salamander and its 
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. This subunit 
requires special management to address threats including the potential 
for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry 
practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and 
potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads 
that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding 
terrestrial habitat. All lands designated as critical habitat contain 
all PCEs and support multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life 
processes.
Subunit B
    Unit FFS-1, Subunit B encompasses 733 ac (296 ha) in Liberty 
County, Florida. Within this subunit, 695 ac (281 ha) are in the 
Apalachicola National Forest and 38 ac (15 ha) are in private 
ownership. Lands within this subunit owned by the U.S. Forest Service 
are protected from direct agricultural and urban development (Griep 
2008); however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods salamander and 
its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. This 
subunit requires special management to address threats including the 
potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in 
forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, 
and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and 
roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding 
terrestrial habitat. All lands designated as critical habitat contain 
all PCEs and support multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life 
processes.
Subunit C
    Unit FFS-1, Subunit C encompasses 972 ac (393 ha) in Liberty 
County, Florida. All of this subunit is within the Apalachicola 
National Forest. Lands within this subunit are owned by the U.S. Forest 
Service and are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban 
development; however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods 
salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the 
PCEs. This subunit requires special management to address threats 
including the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental 
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground 
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from 
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the 
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands designated 
as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted 
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit D
    Unit FFS-1, Subunit D encompasses 568 ac (230 ha) in Liberty 
County, Florida. All of this subunit is within the Apalachicola 
National Forest. Lands within this subunit are owned by the U.S. Forest 
Service and are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban 
development; however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods 
salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the 
PCEs. This subunit requires special management to address threats 
including the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental 
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground 
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from 
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the 
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands designated 
as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted 
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit E
    Unit FFS-1, Subunit E encompasses 3,679 ac (1,489 ha) in Liberty 
County, Florida. Within this subunit, 3,473 ac (1,406 ha) are in the 
Apalachicola National Forest and 206 ac (83 ha) are in private 
ownership. Lands within this subunit owned by the U.S. Forest Service 
are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development; 
however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods salamander and its 
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. This subunit 
requires special management to address threats including the potential 
for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry 
practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, potential 
hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that 
could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding 
terrestrial habitat, as well as agricultural and urban development. All 
lands designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support 
multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit F
    Unit FFS-1, Subunit F encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) in Liberty County, 
Florida. All of this subunit is within the Apalachicola National 
Forest. Lands within this subunit are owned by the U.S. Forest Service 
and are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban 
development; however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods 
salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the 
PCEs. This subunit requires special management to address threats 
including the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental 
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground 
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from 
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the 
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands designated 
as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted 
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit G
    Unit FFS-1, Subunit G encompasses 5,373 ac (2,175 ha) in Liberty 
County, Florida. Within this subunit, 5,277 ac (2,136 ha) are in the 
Apalachicola National Forest and 96 ac (39 ha) are in private 
ownership. Lands within this subunit owned by the U.S. Forest Service 
are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development; 
however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods salamander and its 
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. This subunit 
requires special management to address threats including the potential 
for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry 
practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, potential 
hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that 
could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding 
terrestrial habitat, as well as agricultural and urban development. All 
lands designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support 
multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit H
    Unit FFS-1, Subunit H encompasses 887 ac (359 ha) in Liberty 
County, Florida. Within this subunit, 861 ac (348

[[Page 6734]]

ha) are in the Apalachicola National Forest, 22 ac (9 ha) are under 
State management, and 4 ac (2 ha) are in private ownership. This 
subunit was not occupied at the time of listing, but is currently 
occupied. The currently occupied habitat of the flatwoods salamander is 
highly localized and fragmented. Flatwoods salamanders are particularly 
susceptible to drought, as breeding cannot occur if breeding ponds do 
not receive adequate rainfall. These small populations are at a high 
risk of extinction due to random events such as drought, and human-
induced threats such as urban-agricultural development and habitat 
degradation due to fire suppression and hydrological alterations. Thus, 
to ensure the persistence and conservation of this species throughout 
its current geographic and ecological distribution despite fluctuations 
in the status of subpopulations, we have determined that this subunit, 
although not occupied at the time of listing, is essential for the 
conservation of the species. Lands within this subunit owned by the 
U.S. Forest Service are likely protected from direct agricultural and 
urban development. All lands designated as critical habitat contain all 
PCEs and support multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit I
    Unit FFS-1, Subunit I encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) within the 
Apalachicola National Forest in Liberty County, Florida. This subunit 
was not occupied at the time of listing, but is currently occupied. The 
currently occupied habitat of the flatwoods salamander is highly 
localized and fragmented. Flatwoods salamanders are particularly 
susceptible to drought, as breeding cannot occur if breeding ponds do 
not receive adequate rainfall. These small populations are at a high 
risk of extinction due to random events such as drought, and human-
induced threats such as urban-agricultural development and habitat 
degradation due to fire suppression and hydrological alterations. Thus, 
to ensure the persistence and conservation of this species throughout 
its current geographic and ecological distribution despite fluctuations 
in the status of subpopulations, we have determined that this subunit 
is essential for the conservation of the species. Lands within this 
subunit are owned by the U.S. Forest Service and are likely protected 
from direct agricultural and urban development. All lands designated as 
critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted 
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit J
    Unit FFS-1, Subunit J encompasses 593 ac (240 ha) in Franklin 
County, Florida. All of this subunit is within the Apalachicola 
National Forest. Lands within this subunit are owned by the U.S. Forest 
Service and are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban 
development; however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods 
salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the 
PCEs. This subunit requires special management to address threats 
including the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental 
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground 
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from 
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the 
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands designated 
as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted 
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Unit FFS-3
    Unit FFS-3, which was occupied at the time of listing, is comprised 
of three subunits encompassing 5,045 ac (2,042 ha) in Jefferson and 
Wakulla Counties, Florida. Within this unit, 2,049 ac (829 ha) are on 
St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (managed by the Service), 85 
ac (34 ha) are in the Aucilla Wildlife Management Area managed by the 
State of Florida, and 2,911 ac (1,178 ha) are in private ownership.
Subunit A
    Unit FFS-3, Subunit A encompasses 3,078 ac (1,245 ha) on Federal 
and private land in Wakulla County, Florida. This subunit is located 
south of U.S. Hwy. 98 and southeast of the town of Newport, Florida. 
Within this subunit, 1,456 ac (589 ha) are in the St. Marks NWR and 
1,622 ac (656 ha) are in private ownership. Portions of this subunit 
that are within Federal ownership are likely protected from direct 
agricultural and urban development; however, threats remain to the 
frosted flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special 
management of the PCEs. This subunit requires special management to 
address threats including the potential for fire suppression, potential 
detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the 
below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting 
from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the 
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off 
from highways can introduce toxic chemicals into breeding sites. 
Special management is needed to address the threats of agricultural and 
urban development on portions of the unit within private ownership. All 
lands designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support 
multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit B
    Unit FFS-3, Subunit B encompasses 1,804 ac (730 ha) on Federal and 
private land. This subunit is located south of U.S. Hwy. 98 in 
southeastern Wakulla and southwestern Jefferson counties. Within this 
subunit, 593 ac (240 ha) are in the St. Marks NWR and 1,211 ac (490 ha) 
are in private ownership. Portions of this subunit that are within 
Federal ownership are likely protected from direct agricultural and 
urban development; however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods 
salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the 
PCEs. This subunit requires special management to address threats 
including the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental 
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground 
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from 
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the 
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off 
from highways can introduce toxic chemicals into breeding sites. 
Special management is needed to address the threats of agricultural and 
urban development on portions of the unit within private ownership. All 
lands designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support 
multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit C
    Unit FFS-3, Subunit C encompasses 163 ac (66 ha) in Jefferson 
County, Florida. Within this subunit, 85 ac (34 ha) are in the Aucilla 
Wildlife Management Area managed by the State of Florida and 78 ac (32 
ha) are in private ownership. This subunit is bisected by State Hwy. 
59, 5.3 mi (8.4 km) north of U.S. Hwy. 98, and approximately 2 mi (3.2 
km) east of the Jefferson-Wakulla County line. Portions of this subunit 
that are within State ownership are likely protected from direct 
agricultural and urban development; however, threats remain to the 
frosted flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special 
management of the PCEs. This subunit requires special management to 
address threats including the potential for fire suppression, potential 
detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the 
below-ground soil

[[Page 6735]]

structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent 
highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond 
and surrounding terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off from highways 
can introduce toxic chemicals into breeding sites. Special management 
is needed to address the threats of agricultural and urban development 
on portions of the unit within private ownership. All lands designated 
as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted 
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Unit FFS-4
    Unit FFS-4 is comprised of two subunits encompassing 712 ac (288 
ha) in Baker County, Florida. Within this unit, which was occupied at 
the time of listing, 550 ac (223 ha) are on Osceola NF and 162 ac (66 
ha) are in private ownership.
Subunit A
    Unit FFS-4, Subunit A encompasses 550 ac (223 ha) on the Osceola 
National Forest in Baker County, Florida. This subunit is located 
adjacent and south of Interstate 10 in the southwestern corner of Baker 
County between State Highways 250 and 229. Portions of this subunit 
within Federal ownership are likely protected from direct agricultural 
and urban development; however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods 
salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the 
PCEs. This subunit requires special management to address threats 
including the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental 
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground 
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from 
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the 
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. In addition, run-off 
from highways can introduce toxic chemicals into breeding sites. All 
lands designated as critical habitat contain all PCEs and support 
multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit B
    Unit FFS-4, Subunit B encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on private land in 
Baker County, Florida. This subunit occurs approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) 
south of State Hwy. 229 and 3.5 mi (5.6 km) north of Interstate 10. 
This subunit requires special management to address threats including 
the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations 
in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil 
structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent 
highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond 
and surrounding terrestrial habitat, as well as agricultural and urban 
development. In addition, run-off from highways can introduce toxic 
chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as critical habitat 
contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life 
processes.
Unit FFS-5
    Unit FFS-5 is comprised of two subunits encompassing 337 ac (136 
ha) on privately owned land in Jasper County, South Carolina. Both 
subunits were occupied at the time of listing and are currently 
occupied.
Subunit A
    Unit FFS-5, Subunit A encompasses 154 ac (62 ha) on private land in 
Jasper County, South Carolina. This subunit is bisected by State Hwy. 
46 and occurs near a rapidly developing area of Jasper County. Within 
this subunit, threats to the frosted flatwoods salamander and its 
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the 
potential for fire suppression, potential expansion of agriculture and 
residential development into the unit, potential detrimental 
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground 
soils structure, potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent 
roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding 
terrestrial habitat, and future habitat destruction due to urban and 
commercial development. In addition, run-off from highways can 
introduce toxic chemicals into breeding sites. All lands designated as 
critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted 
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Subunit B
    Unit FFS-5, Subunit B encompasses 183 ac (74 ha) on private land in 
Jasper County, South Carolina. This subunit is bisected by a county 
road, approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) west of U.S. Hwy. 321, northwest of 
Hardeeville, South Carolina. Within this subunit, threats to the 
frosted flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special 
management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, 
potential expansion of agriculture and residential development into the 
unit, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that 
could destroy the below-ground soils structure, potential hydrologic 
changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of 
the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat, and future 
habitat destruction due to urban and commercial development. In 
addition, run-off from highways can introduce toxic chemicals into 
breeding sites. All lands designated as critical habitat contain all 
PCEs and support multiple frosted flatwoods salamander life processes.
Unit FFS-6
    Unit FFS-6, occupied at the time of listing, encompasses 1,300 ac 
(526 ha) on Federal and private land in Berkeley County, South 
Carolina. This unit is bisected by State Highway 41 approximately 10 mi 
(16 km) south of the town of Huger. Within this unit, 1,176 ac (476 ha) 
are in the Francis Marion National Forest and 124 ac (50 ha) are on 
private land. Land within this subunit owned by the U.S. Forest Service 
is protected from agricultural and urban development; however, threats 
remain to frosted flatwoods salamander habitat that may require special 
management of the PCEs. These threats include the potential for fire 
suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices 
that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential 
hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that 
could alter the ecological functioning of the breeding pond and 
surrounding terrestrial habitat. Special management of the PCEs may 
also be required for the threats posed by agricultural and urban 
development on the lands in private ownership. All lands designated as 
critical habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted 
flatwoods salamander life processes.
Unit FFS-7
    Unit FFS-7 encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on the Santee Coastal Reserve 
(managed by the State of South Carolina) in Charleston County, South 
Carolina. Approximately 0.32 ac (0.13 ha) on private land are also 
included within this unit. Since most of this unit, which was occupied 
at the time of listing, is owned by the State of South Carolina, it is 
likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development; 
however, threats remain to the frosted flatwoods salamander and its 
habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. Threats 
include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental 
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground 
soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from 
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the 
breeding pond and

[[Page 6736]]

surrounding terrestrial habitat. All lands designated as critical 
habitat contain all PCEs and support multiple frosted flatwoods 
salamander life processes.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that 
actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or adversely 
modify designated critical habitat. Decisions by the 5th and 9th 
Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated our definition of 
``destruction or adverse modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford 
Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F. 3d 1059 
(9th Cir 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, et 
al., 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)), and we do not rely on this 
regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is likely to 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the statutory 
provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse modification 
on the basis of whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal 
action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional (or 
retain the current ability for the PCEs to be functionally established) 
to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
    Under section 7(a)(2) of the Act, if a Federal action may affect a 
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency 
(action agency) must enter into consultation with us. As a result of 
this consultation, we document compliance with the requirements of 
section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
    (1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
    (2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that are likely to 
adversely affect listed species or critical habitat.
    When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide 
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are 
identifiable. We define ``Reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50 
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
    <bullet> Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the 
intended purpose of the action,
    <bullet> Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the 
Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
    <bullet> Are economically and technologically feasible, and
    <bullet> Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat.

Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
    Federal activities that may affect the frosted flatwoods or 
reticulated flatwoods salamanders or their designated critical habitat 
will require section 7(a)(2) consultation under the Act. Activities on 
State, tribal, local, or private lands requiring a Federal permit (such 
as a permit from the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from us under section 10(a)(1)(B) of 
the Act) or involving some other Federal action (such as funding from 
the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or 
the Federal Emergency Management Agency) are examples of agency actions 
that may be subject to the section 7(a)(2) consultation process. 
Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and 
actions on State, Tribal, local or private lands that are not federally 
funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require section 7(a)(2) 
consultations.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

    The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is 
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the 
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended 
conservation role for the species, or would retain its current ability 
for the primary constituent elements to be functionally established. 
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are 
those that alter the physical and biological features to an extent that 
appreciably reduces the conservation value of critical habitat for the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander and the frosted flatwoods salamander. 
Generally, the conservation role of reticulated flatwoods salamander 
and frosted flatwoods salamander critical habitat units is to support 
viable core areas for the species.
    Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and 
describe, in any final regulation that designates critical habitat, 
activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely 
modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation.
    Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore should result 
in consultation for the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the 
frosted flatwoods salamander include, but are not limited to:
    (1) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry in 
reticulated flatwoods salamander or frosted flatwoods salamander 
breeding ponds. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, 
the release of chemicals, biological pollutants, or sedimentation into 
the surface water or connected groundwater at a point source or by 
dispersed release (non-point source) via road construction, urban and 
agricultural development, ditching, timber harvest, off-road vehicle 
use, and other watershed disturbances. These activities could alter the 
condition of the water beyond the tolerances of the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander and frosted flatwoods salamander and their 
respective food bases, resulting in direct or cumulative adverse 
effects to individuals and their life cycles.
    (2) Actions that would significantly alter the hydroperiod and 
vegetation of a reticulated flatwoods salamander or a frosted flatwoods 
salamander breeding pond. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, road construction; urban and agricultural development; 
dredging, ditching, or filling ponds; fire suppression; and timber 
harvesting and replanting. These activities could alter the hydrologic 
timing, duration, or water flows of a pond basin, as well as alter the 
constituent vegetation. They could also increase the connectivity of 
breeding ponds to more permanent waters, which would allow the invasion 
of predatory fish. As a result, the habitat necessary for reticulated 
flatwoods salamander or frosted flatwoods

[[Page 6737]]

salamander reproduction and the growth and development of eggs and 
juvenile salamanders would be reduced or eliminated.
    (3) Actions that would significantly alter the terrestrial forested 
habitat of the reticulated flatwoods salamander or the frosted 
flatwoods salamander. Such activities could include, but are not 
limited to, road construction, urban and agricultural development, 
dredging, ditching, fire suppression, and timber harvesting and 
replanting. These activities may lead to changes in soil moisture, soil 
below-ground structure, soil temperatures, and vegetation that would 
degrade or eliminate the terrestrial habitat of the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander or frosted flatwoods salamander.
    Please see ``Special Management Considerations or Protection'' 
section for a more detailed discussion on the impacts of these actions 
to the listed species.
Exemptions and Exclusions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resource management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
    <bullet> An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
    <bullet> A statement of goals and priorities;
    <bullet> A detailed description of management actions to be 
implemented to provide for these ecological needs; and
    <bullet> A monitoring and adaptive management plan.

Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if 
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit 
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation.''
    We consult with the military on the development and implementation 
of INRMPs for installations with listed species. The Service reviewed 
each of the INRMPs described below prior to their finalization and has 
provided input into strategies for monitoring and management of 
endangered species including the reticulated flatwoods salamander and 
frosted flatwoods salamander. Each military facility has been 
conducting surveys and habitat management to benefit the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander or the frosted flatwoods salamander and reporting 
the results of their efforts to the Service. Cooperation between the 
military facilities and the Service on specific conservation measures 
continues. INRMPs developed by military installations located within 
the range of the critical habitat designation for the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander and the frosted flatwoods salamander were analyzed 
for exemption under the authority of 4(a)(3) of the Act.

Approved INRMPs

Navy Outlying Landing Field Holley (NOLF Holley)
    NOLF Holley is located in Santa Rosa County, Florida, and has 
approximately 289 ac (117 ha) of habitat with features essential to the 
conservation of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. In 2006, the U.S. 
Department of the Navy (DoN) drafted a revision of its 2001 INRMP for 
Naval Air Station Whiting Field Complex, of which NOLF Holley is a part 
(DoN 2006, pp. 5-68, 5-70, 5-73, 5-76, 5-77, 6-22, 6-23, A-16). The 
revised INRMP outlines management for 5 years (2007-2011). We have 
examined this document and determined that it does provide conservation 
measures for the reticulated flatwoods salamander, as well as for the 
management of important wetland and upland habitats at NOLF Holley. The 
area of NOLF Holley where reticulated flatwoods salamander habitat is 
located has been designated as a Protected Area. The INRMP outlines a 
Special Management Initiative for the reticulated flatwoods salamander, 
which includes a prescribed burning program, strategies to identify 
salamander distribution and habitat, control of invasive species, 
enforcement of restrictions on off-road vehicle use, and forest 
management consistent with recommendations in the final listing rule 
(64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999). Although we had received information in 
2007 that the Navy was considering selling NOLF Holley and as a result 
were concerned about implementation of the INRMP, the Navy has assured 
us that it has no plans to transfer ownership of the site and it 
intends to continue stewardship of the salamander and its habitat (DoN 
2008, p. 2).
    Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the 
direction provided in section 4(a)(3)B)(i) of the Act, we have 
determined that conservation efforts identified in the INRMP will 
provide benefits to the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the 
features essential to the species' conservation occurring on NOLF 
Holley. In our analyses, we have taken into consideration that the 
INRMP does not protect the habitat from future destruction or 
modification associated with development, however, we know of no such 
potential threat at this time. Therefore, this installation is exempt 
from critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We 
are not including approximately 289 ac (117 ha) of habitat in the final 
critical habitat designation for the reticulated flatwoods salamander 
because of this exemption.
Hurlburt Field
    Hurlburt Field is located in Okaloosa County, Florida, and has 
approximately 712 ac (288 ha) of habitat with features essential to the 
conservation of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. The U.S. 
Department of Defense-Air Force finalized a revision to the INRMP for 
Hurlburt Field in 2008 (DoD 2008, pp. 1-152). The INRMP will continue 
to be reviewed annually to monitor the effectiveness of the plan, and 
be reviewed every five years to develop revisions and updates as 
necessary. We have examined this document and determined that it does 
outline conservation measures for the reticulated flatwoods salamander, 
as well as management plans for important wetland and upland habitats 
at Hurlburt Field. The INRMP outlines goals and objectives for the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander and its habitat that include a 
prescribed burning program, strategies to identify and monitor 
salamander distribution and habitat, control of invasive species, and 
forest management consistent with recommendations in the final listing 
rule (DoD 2008, pp. 61, 79, 133-151).
    Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the 
direction

[[Page 6738]]

provided in section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that 
conservation efforts identified in the INRMP will provide a benefit to 
the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the features essential to the 
species' conservation occurring in habitats within Hurlburt Field. 
Therefore, this installation is exempt from critical habitat 
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act. We are not including 
approximately 712 ac (288 ha) of habitat in this final designation of 
critical habitat because of this exemption.
Eglin Air Force Base (Eglin)
    Eglin is located in Okaloosa and Santa Rosa counties, Florida, and 
has approximately 1,880 ac (761 ha) of habitat with features essential 
to the conservation of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. The 
Department of Defense completed the update of its INRMP for Eglin in 
2007 (DoD 2007, pp. 124-126, 181). This INRMP covers a period of 5 
years from 2007 through 2011. A separate threatened and endangered 
species component plan has been written and contains specific 
monitoring and management actions for the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander (DoD 2006a, pp. 53-64, 240-242). The INRMP and component 
plan outline a management direction for the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander that includes a prescribed burning program, strategies to 
identify and monitor salamander distribution and habitat, control of 
invasive species, and forest management consistent with recommendations 
in the final listing rule (64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999). In 2007, it 
came to our attention (Arnold 2007) that a road had been proposed which 
could cross Eglin within the habitat with features essential to the 
conservation of the reticulated flatwoods salamander. However, during 
the open comment period Eglin assured us that it will not allow 
negative impacts to the salamander's habitat and that it will continue 
to ensure the conservation of the reticulated flatwoods salamander.
    Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the 
direction provided in section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have 
determined that the INRMP will provide a benefit to the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander and the features essential to the species' 
conservation occurring on Eglin. Therefore, approximately 1,880 ac (761 
ha) of habitat on Eglin with features essential to the conservation of 
the reticulated flatwoods salamander are exempt from this final 
critical habitat designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Fort Stewart Military Installation (Fort Stewart)
    Fort Stewart, U.S. Army installation, is located in Bryan, Evans, 
Liberty, Long, and Tattnall Counties, Georgia and has approximately 
5,121 ac (2,072 ha) of habitat with features essential to the 
conservation of the frosted flatwoods salamander. The first INRMP 
(INRMP I) for Fort Stewart was completed in 2001 and updated in 2005 
(DoD 2005, pp. 1, 22, 34, 76-77). Each INRMP covers a period of 5 years 
with a subsequent review and update every 5 years. Additionally, an 
annual review of management implementation is conducted and, if 
necessary, the INRMP is adapted to address needed improvements. The 
management direction from INRMP I is being continued in the review. We 
have examined this document and determined that it does provide 
conservation measures for the frosted flatwoods salamander, as well as 
for the management of important wetland and upland habitats at Fort 
Stewart. The INRMP outlines management activities to be conducted for 
the frosted flatwoods salamander (DoD 2005, p. 22). These include a 
prescribed burning program, strategies to identify and monitor frosted 
flatwoods salamander distribution and habitat, control of invasive 
species, and forest management consistent with recommendations in the 
final listing rule (64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999). At this time, we know 
of no proposed projects outside the scope of the INRMP which would 
threaten the frosted flatwoods salamander or its habitat.
    Based on the above considerations, and consistent with the 
direction provided in section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have 
determined that conservation identified in the INRMP will provide 
benefits to the frosted flatwoods salamander and the features essential 
to the species' conservation occurring on Fort Stewart Military 
Installation. In our analyses, we have taken into consideration that 
the INRMP does not protect the habitat from future destruction or 
modification associated with development, however, we know of no such 
potential threat at this time. Therefore, approximately 5,121 ac (2,072 
ha) of habitat with features essential to the conservation of the 
frosted flatwoods salamander within Fort Stewart Military Installation 
are exempt from this final designation of critical habitat for the 
frosted flatwoods salamander under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.
Townsend Bombing Range (Townsend)
    Townsend is located in McIntosh County, Georgia, and contains 
approximately 162 ac (66 ha) of habitat with features essential to the 
conservation of the frosted flatwoods salamander. The property is owned 
by the U.S. Department of the Navy and the land is managed by Marine 
Corps Air Station, Beaufort, South Carolina (MCAS Beaufort). The 
original INRMP written in 2001 for Townsend has been renewed to cover 
the period November 2006 through October 2011 (DoD 2006b, pp. ES-1, ES-
2, 1-3, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 3-15, 4-4, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-19, 4-20, 4-
22, 4-23, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29). We have examined this document and 
determined that it does provide conservation measures for the frosted 
flatwoods salamander, as well as for the management of important 
wetland and upland habitats at Townsend. The INRMP includes activities 
to maintain or increase the salamander's population on Townsend through 
improvement of terrestrial habitat through use of prescribed fire and 
improvement of water quality and hydrologic regime of the breeding 
ponds. The INRMP provides biological goals and objectives, measures of 
success, provisions for annual monitoring and adaptive management, and 
provisions for reporting. The INRMP outlines projects that would 
benefit the frosted flatwoods salamander including a prescribed burning 
program, strategies to identify and monitor salamander distribution and 
habitat, control of invasive species, and forest management consistent 
with recommendations in the final listing rule (64 FR 15691; April 1, 
1999).
    Based on the above considerations, and in accordance with section 
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act, we have determined that conservation efforts 
identified in the INRMP will provide benefits to the frosted flatwoods 
salamander and the features essential to the species' conservation 
occurring in habitats within or adjacent to the Townsend Bombing Range. 
In our analyses, we have taken into consideration that the INRMP does 
not protect the habitat from future destruction or modification 
associated with development, however, we know of no such potential 
threat at this time. Therefore, approximately 162 ac (66 ha) of habitat 
with features essential to the conservation of the frosted flatwoods 
salamander on Townsend are exempt from final critical habitat 
designation under section 4(a)(3) of the Act.

[[Page 6739]]

Application of Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate 
and revise critical habitat on the basis of the best available 
scientific data after taking into consideration the economic impact, 
national security impact, and any other relevant impact of specifying 
any particular area as critical habitat. The Secretary may exclude an 
area from critical habitat if he determines that the benefits of such 
exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying such area as part of the 
critical habitat, unless he determines, based on the best scientific 
data available, that the failure to designate such area as critical 
habitat will result in the extinction of the species. In making that 
determination, the statute as well as the legislative history are clear 
that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which factor(s) to 
use and how much weight to give to any factor.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, in considering whether to exclude 
a particular area from the designation, we must identify the benefits 
of including the area in the designation, identify the benefits of 
excluding the area from the designation, and determine whether the 
benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion. If based on 
this analysis we determine that the benefits of exclusion would 
outweigh the benefits of inclusion of an area, then we can exclude the 
area only if such exclusions would not result in the extinction of the 
species.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we must consider all relevant 
impacts, including economic impacts. We consider a number of factors in 
a section 4(b)(2) analysis. For example, we consider whether there are 
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national 
security impact might exist. We also consider whether landowners having 
proposed critical habitat on their lands have developed any 
conservation plans for the area, or whether there are conservation 
partnerships that would be encouraged by designation of, or exclusion 
from, critical habitat. In addition, we look at any Tribal issues, and 
consider the government-to-government relationship of the United States 
with Tribal entities. We also consider any social or other impacts that 
might occur because of the designation.
    In the proposed rule, we requested comments regarding information 
supporting or opposing possible exclusion of units within National 
Forests from critical habitat in the final designation. In this 
instance, we have examined all comments submitted and evaluated the 
Forest Management Plans for Francis Marion, Osceola, and Apalachicola 
National Forests with respect to providing adequate protection and 
management for the flatwoods salamander. None of these Plans provide 
sufficient protection and management to satisfy the criteria necessary 
for exclusion from final critical habitat.
    On the other hand, we have determined that the lands designated as 
critical habitat for the frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders 
are not currently included in habitat conservation plans (HCPs) for 
these species and that the designation does not include any Tribal 
lands or trust resources. We anticipate no impact to national security, 
Tribal lands, partnerships, or HCPs from this critical habitat 
designation.

Economic Analysis (EA)

    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act requires that we designate or revise 
critical habitat based upon the best scientific data available, after 
taking into consideration the economic impact, impact on national 
security, or any other relevant impact of specifying any particular 
area as critical habitat. In compliance with section 4(b)(2) of the 
Act, we have prepared an EA of this final designation of critical 
habitat for the frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders.
    The final EA (Industrial Economics 2008b) considers the potential 
economic effects of actions relating to the conservation of the frosted 
and reticulated flatwoods salamanders, including costs associated with 
sections 4, 7, and 10 of the Act, and including those attributable to 
designating critical habitat. It further considers the economic effects 
of protective measures taken as a result of other Federal, State, and 
local laws that aid habitat conservation for the frosted and 
reticulated flatwoods salamanders in essential habitat areas. The EA 
considers both economic efficiency and distributional effects. In the 
case of habitat conservation, efficiency effects generally reflect the 
``opportunity costs'' associated with the commitment of resources to 
comply with habitat protection measures (for example, lost economic 
opportunities associated with restrictions on land use).
    The EA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to 
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional 
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of 
conservation activities on small entities and the energy industry. This 
information can be used by decision-makers to assess whether the 
effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group or 
economic sector. Finally, the EA considers those costs that may occur 
in the 20 years following a designation of critical habitat.
    Pre-critical-habitat designation (or pre-designation) (1999-2008) 
costs associated with species conservation activities are estimated at 
$2.08 million discounted at 7 percent (Industrial Economics 2008b, p. 
B-4). Potential post-critical-habitat designation (or post-designation) 
(2009-2028) costs are estimated to range between $3.88 and $6.40 
million at a 3 percent discount rate and between $2.49 and $4.38 
million at a 7 percent discount rate (Industrial Economics 2008b, p. B-
5). In annualized terms, potential post-designation costs are expected 
to range from $261,000 to $430,000 annualized at 3 percent and $235,000 
to $413,000 annualized at 7 percent (Industrial Economics 2008b, p. B-
5).
    Because our EA did not identify any disproportionate costs that are 
likely to result from the designation, we did not consider excluding 
any areas from this designation of critical habitat for the frosted or 
reticulated flatwoods salamanders based on economic impacts.
    A copy of the final EA with supporting documents is included in our 
administrative record and may be obtained by contacting U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Branch of Endangered Species (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT) or by downloading from the Internet at 
www.regulations.gov/.
    Therefore, there are no areas excluded from this final critical 
habitat designation under section 4(b)(2).

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Order 12866)

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this 
rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 (E.O. 12866). OMB 
bases its determination upon the following four criteria:
    (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or 
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, 
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
    (b) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal 
agencies' actions.
    (c) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, 
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their 
recipients.
    (d) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

[[Page 6740]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), whenever an agency must publish a notice of 
rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must prepare and make 
available for public comment a regulatory flexibility analysis that 
describes the effects of the rule on small entities (small businesses, 
small organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of the agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended RFA to require 
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for 
certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. In this final rule, we are 
certifying that the critical habitat designation for the frosted and 
reticulated flatwoods salamanders will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The following 
discussion explains our rationale.
    According to the Small Business Administration (SBA), small 
entities include small organizations, such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; as well as small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small 
businesses include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 
500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees, 
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual 
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5 
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than 
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with 
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic 
impacts to these small entities are significant, we consider the types 
of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as 
well as the types of project modifications that may result. In general, 
the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical 
small business firm's business operations.
    To determine if the final designation of critical habitat for the 
frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders could significantly 
affect a substantial number of small entities, we considered the number 
of small entities affected within particular types of economic 
activities (for example, housing development, grazing, oil and gas 
production, timber harvesting). We considered each industry or category 
individually to determine if certification is appropriate. In 
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also 
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement; some 
kinds of activities are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so 
will not be affected by the designation of critical habitat. 
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities conducted, 
funded, permitted, or authorized by Federal agencies; non-Federal 
activities are not affected by the designation. Typically, when final 
critical habitat designations are made final, Federal agencies must 
consult with us if their activities may affect that designated critical 
habitat. Consultations to avoid the destruction or adverse modification 
of critical habitat would be incorporated into the existing 
consultation process.
    The EA for the frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders 
evaluated the potential for economic impacts related to several 
categories, including (1) timber management; (2) development; (3) other 
activities, including road construction, species management, fire 
management and recreation (Industrial Economics 2008b, p. A-2). Based 
on our analysis, only small business entities that rely on land 
development are expected to be affected by conservation efforts for the 
frosted and reticulated flatwoods salamanders. Therefore, the screening 
analysis focused on incremental impacts to development activities. Six 
small businesses may be affected with an average high-end potential per 
business impact of $46,100 (Industrial Economics 2008b, p. A-6) for 
both species. Potential high-end incremental impacts per landowner 
range from $6,770 in FFS-1 to $102,000 in RFS-3. Potentially affected 
developable acres in the final critical habitat designation are small 
relative to the total number of developable acres in these counties. 
Regional businesses that support or are supported by development (such 
as construction companies, hardware suppliers, or lumberyards) in these 
counties are not expected to be measurably affected by salamander 
conservation (Industrial Economics 2008b, p. A-6). In addition, 
``downstream'' impacts are not measurable due to the small proportion 
of all developable lands that are projected to be impacted by 
salamander conservation measures (as measured at the county level) 
(Industrial Economics 2008b, p. A-3).
    In summary, we have considered whether this final designation of 
critical habitat would result in a significant economic effect on a 
substantial number of small entities. We have determined, for the above 
reasons and based on currently available information, that it is not 
likely to affect a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, we 
certify that this final regulation will not result in a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small business entities. 
Please refer to our EA of this designation for a more detailed 
discussion of potential economic impacts.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.), we make the following findings:
    (a) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a 
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation 
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.'' 
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal 
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose 
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal governments'' with two 
exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It also 
excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal 
program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing Federal 
program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually to State, 
local, and Tribal governments under entitlement authority,'' if the 
provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of assistance'' 
or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal Government's 
responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local, or Tribal 
governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the time of 
enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; AFDC work 
programs; Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; 
Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care, Adoption 
Assistance, and Independent Living; Family Support Welfare Services; 
and Child Support Enforcement. ``Federal private sector mandate'' 
includes a regulation that ``would impose an enforceable duty upon the 
private sector, except (i) a condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a 
duty arising from participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
    The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally 
binding duty

[[Page 6741]]

on non-Federal Government entities or private parties. Under the Act, 
the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must ensure that 
their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical habitat under 
section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive Federal funding, 
assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require approval or 
authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be indirectly 
impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally binding 
duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat 
rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the extent that 
non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they receive 
Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid program, 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply, nor would critical 
habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs listed above 
onto State governments.
    (b) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments because it is not likely to produce a Federal 
mandate of $100 million or greater in any year, that is, it is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act. Most lands being designated as critical habitat are Federal or 
State properties. In addition, the designation of critical habitat 
imposes no obligations on State or local governments. Therefore, a 
Small Government Agency Plan is not required.

Takings

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the frosted 
flatwoods salamander in a takings implications assessment. The takings 
implications assessment concludes that this designation of critical 
habitat for the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the frosted 
flatwoods salamander does not pose significant takings implications for 
lands within or affected by the designation.

Federalism

    In accordance with E.O. 13132 (Federalism), this final rule does 
not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of 
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated 
development of, this final critical habitat designation with 
appropriate State resource agencies in Florida, Georgia, and South 
Carolina. The designation of critical habitat in areas currently 
occupied by the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the frosted 
flatwoods salamander imposes no additional restrictions to those 
currently in place and, therefore, has little incremental impact on 
State and local governments and their activities. The designation may 
have some benefit to these governments because the areas that contain 
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of 
the species are more clearly defined, and the PCEs necessary to support 
the life processes of the species are specifically identified. This 
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur. However, it may assist local governments in long-
range planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of the Order. We have designated critical habitat in accordance 
with the provisions of the Act. This final rule uses standard property 
descriptions and identifies physical and biological features essential 
to the conservation of the species within the designated areas to 
assist the public in understanding the habitat needs of the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander and the frosted flatwoods salamander.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This rule does not contain any new collections of information that 
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or 
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals, 
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and 
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information 
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

    It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the United 
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to 
prepare environmental analyses as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
seq.) in connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We 
published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This assertion was 
upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 
(Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 
516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to tribes. We have determined that there are no 
tribal lands occupied at the time of listing that contain the features 
essential for the conservation, and no tribal lands that are essential 
for the conservation, of the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the 
frosted flatwoods salamander. Therefore, we have no final critical 
habitat for the reticulated flatwoods salamander and the frosted 
flatwoods salamander on tribal lands.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O. 
13211; Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use) on regulations that significantly affect 
energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to 
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. 
While this final rule to designate critical habitat for the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander and frosted flatwoods salamander is a significant 
regulatory action under E.O. 12866 in that it may raise novel legal and 
policy issues, we do not expect it to significantly affect energy 
supplies, distribution, or use. Based on our draft EA (Industrial 
Economics Inc. 2008a, p. A-8), none of the nine outcomes that

[[Page 6742]]

may constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' exist for this final 
rule. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no 
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is 
available upon request from the Field Supervisor, Ray Aycock, 
Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT).

Author(s)

    The primary author of this document is the Staff of the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Service Field 
Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

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


0
2. In Sec.  17.11(h) remove the entry for ``Salamander, flatwoods'', 
and add entries for ``Salamander, frosted flatwoods'' and ``Salamander, 
reticulated flatwoods'' in alphabetical order under ``AMPHIBIANS,'' to 
the List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife, to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
            Amphibians
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Salamander, frosted flatwoods....  Ambystoma cingulatum  U.S.A. (FL, GA, SC)  Entire.............  T                       658     17.95(d)           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
Salamander, reticulated flatwoods  Ambystoma bishopi...  U.S.A. (FL, GA)....  Entire.............  E               ...........     17.95(d)           NA
 
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    3. In Sec.  17.95, amend paragraph (d) by adding entries for 
``Frosted flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum)'' and 
``Reticulated flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma bishopi)'' in the same 
alphabetical order that these species appear in the table at Sec.  
17.11(h), to read as follows:


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
    Frosted Flatwoods Salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Baker, Franklin, 
Jefferson, Liberty, and Wakulla Counties in Florida; and Berkeley, 
Charleston, and Jasper Counties in South Carolina on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the 
frosted flatwoods salamander are:
    (i) Breeding habitat. Small (generally less than 1 to 10 ac (less 
than 0.4 to 4.0 ha)), acidic, depressional standing bodies of 
freshwater (wetlands) that:
    (A) Are seasonally flooded by rainfall in late fall or early winter 
and dry in late spring or early summer;
    (B) Are geographically isolated from other water bodies;
    (C) Occur within pine flatwoods-savanna communities;
    (D) Are dominated by grasses and grass-like species in the ground 
layer and overstories of pond-cypress, blackgum, and slash pine;
    (E) Have a relatively open canopy, necessary to maintain the 
herbaceous component that serves as cover for flatwoods salamander 
larvae and their aquatic invertebrate prey; and
    (F) Typically have a burrowing crayfish fauna, but, due to periodic 
drying, the breeding ponds typically lack large, predatory fish (for 
example, Lepomis (sunfish), Micropterus (bass), Amia calva (bowfin)).
    (ii) Non-breeding habitat. Upland pine flatwoods-savanna habitat 
that is open, mesic woodland maintained by frequent fires and that:
    (A) Is within 1,500 ft (457 m) of adjacent and accessible breeding 
ponds;
    (B) Contains crayfish burrows or other underground habitat that the 
flatwoods salamander depends upon for food, shelter, and protection 
from the elements and predation;
    (C) Has an organic hardpan in the soil profile, which inhibits 
subsurface water penetration and typically results in moist soils with 
water often at or near the surface under normal conditions; and
    (D) Often has wiregrasses as the dominant grasses in the abundant 
herbaceous ground cover, which supports the rich herbivorous 
invertebrates that serve as a food source for the frosted flatwoods 
salamander.
    (iii) Dispersal habitat. Upland habitat areas between nonbreeding 
and breeding habitat that allows for salamander movement between such 
sites and that is characterized by:
    (A) A mix of vegetation types representing a transition between 
wetland and upland vegetation (ecotone);
    (B) An open canopy and abundant native herbaceous species;
    (C) Moist soils as described in paragraph (2)(ii); and
    (D) Subsurface structure, such as that provided by deep litter 
cover or burrows, that provides shelter for salamanders during seasonal 
movements.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they

[[Page 6743]]

are located existing within the legal boundaries on the effective date 
of this rule.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created on a base of USGS 7.5' quadrangles, and critical habitat units 
were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
    (5) Note: Index map of critical habitat for the frosted flatwoods 
salamander follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6744]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.000

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 6745]]

    (6) Frosted flatwood salamander--Baker, Franklin, Jefferson, 
Liberty, and Wakulla Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit FFS-1, Subunit A--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Estiffanulga and Woods, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 691617.99, 3350707.71; 693095.71, 3348233.03; 692983.53, 
3348209.57; 692897.48, 3348210.76; 692828.41, 3348229.52; 692759.43, 
3348248.25; 692691.40, 3348292.76; 692639.72, 3348326.57; 690393.30, 
3350136.47; 690313.39, 3350218.63; 690268.29, 3350291.92; 690230.96, 
3350400.29; 690221.36, 3350485.81; 690241.25, 3350627.47; 690274.03, 
3350707.04; 690333.43, 3350797.24; 690401.06, 3350865.47; 690279.29, 
3350935.03; 690182.82, 3351040.66; 690111.95, 3351227.14; 690119.70, 
3351398.31; 690131.84, 3352855.50; 690169.32, 3352993.56; 690267.58, 
3353133.94; 690384.46, 3353216.42; 690549.65, 3353261.95; 690664.14, 
3353256.77; 690773.74, 3353223.27; 690871.58, 3353163.57; 690968.05, 
3353057.95; 692565.25, 3351422.56; 692602.62, 3351378.97; 692634.23, 
3351331.03; 692669.80, 3351252.67; 692690.04, 3351169.02; 693379.09, 
3348814.26; 693399.33, 3348730.61; 693403.55, 3348644.66; 693391.58, 
3348559.43; 693363.86, 3348477.96; 693321.37, 3348403.12; 693265.60, 
3348337.58; 693174.08, 3348268.59; 693095.71, 3348233.03.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit A is provided at 
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
    (ii) Unit FFS-1, Subunit B--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Orange, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 689802.94, 3340960.90; 689428.14, 3339447.54; 689123.11, 
3339393.72; 688873.13, 3339525.49; 688743.74, 3339836.26; 688831.13, 
3340169.91; 689917.07, 3342147.02; 690004.49, 3342326.33; 690240.38, 
3342481.91; 690522.67, 3342469.12; 690726.97, 3342316.32; 690843.40, 
3342033.33; 690847.40, 3341805.94; 690741.36, 3341604.76; 689705.63, 
3339902.63; 689617.94, 3339656.89; 689428.14, 3339447.54.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit B is provided at 
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
    (iii) Unit FFS-1, Subunit C--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Wilma, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 695595.00, 3340429.07; 695320.75, 3338608.68; 695308.16, 
3338582.86; 695293.97, 3338557.88; 695278.24, 3338533.84; 695261.04, 
3338510.84; 695242.42, 3338488.97; 695222.47, 3338468.30; 695201.27, 
3338448.93; 695178.88, 3338430.93; 695155.41, 3338414.37; 695130.95, 
3338399.31; 695105.59, 3338385.83; 695079.43, 3338373.95; 695052.58, 
3338363.76; 695025.14, 3338355.26; 694997.23, 3338348.50; 694968.94, 
3338343.51; 694940.40, 3338340.31; 694911.71, 3338338.90; 694882.99, 
3338339.30; 694854.35, 3338341.50; 694825.90, 3338345.50; 694797.76, 
3338351.27; 694770.05, 3338358.80; 694742.85, 3338368.06; 694709.40, 
3338382.20; 694683.58, 3338394.79; 694658.61, 3338408.98; 694634.57, 
3338424.71; 694611.57, 3338441.91; 694589.69, 3338460.52; 694569.03, 
3338480.47; 694549.66, 3338501.69; 694531.66, 3338524.07; 694515.10, 
3338547.54; 694500.05, 3338572.01; 694486.56, 3338597.37; 694474.69, 
3338623.53; 694464.49, 3338650.38; 694455.99, 3338677.82; 694449.24, 
3338705.74; 694444.25, 3338734.03; 694441.05, 3338762.57; 694439.64, 
3338791.26; 694440.04, 3338819.98; 694442.24, 3338848.63; 694446.23, 
3338877.07; 694452.01, 3338905.21; 694459.53, 3338932.93; 694468.79, 
3338960.12; 694479.73, 3338986.68; 695846.37, 3342195.36; 695866.57, 
3342249.11; 695909.07, 3342323.95; 695944.89, 3342368.83; 696008.43, 
3342426.87; 696081.72, 3342471.97; 696134.73, 3342494.04; 696218.37, 
3342514.28; 696304.32, 3342518.50; 696399.96, 3342505.83; 696481.43, 
3342478.10; 696532.23, 3342451.33; 696601.14, 3342399.78; 696659.17, 
3342336.24; 696716.14, 3342236.78; 696741.60, 3342154.57; 696751.20, 
3342069.05; 696748.60, 3342011.68; 696738.84, 3341955.10; 696711.11, 
3341873.63; 695320.75, 3338608.68.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit C is provided at 
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
    (iv) Unit FFS-1, Subunit D--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Wilma, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 698315.71, 3338507.25; 697480.52, 3338897.39; 697508.44, 
3338904.15; 699107.25, 3339112.64; 699249.88, 3339101.68; 699357.17, 
3339061.36; 699491.10, 3338954.46; 699566.06, 3338832.62; 699600.72, 
3338636.16; 699571.97, 3338496.02; 699501.32, 3338371.62; 699419.16, 
3338291.70; 699319.85, 3338227.75; 699161.66, 3338161.88; 697647.47, 
3337884.31; 697505.31, 3337868.36; 697338.62, 3337908.06; 697240.79, 
3337967.76; 697160.88, 3338049.93; 697093.71, 3338176.24; 697068.86, 
3338317.12; 697081.23, 3338431.07; 697135.72, 3338563.34; 697197.51, 
3338669.79; 697283.19, 3338784.36; 697400.08, 3338866.83; 697480.52, 
3338897.39.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit D is provided at 
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
    (v) Unit FFS-1, Subunit E--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Orange and Kennedy Creek, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 686367.53, 3332295.84; 686431.12, 3334276.72; 686521.73, 
3334038.23; 686486.41, 3333905.93; 686456.16, 3333792.66; 686384.37, 
3333673.40; 686529.54, 3333545.42; 686684.99, 3333670.42; 686821.64, 
3333712.74; 686964.68, 3333710.75; 689322.67, 3333980.79; 689576.20, 
3334009.24; 689736.59, 3333948.97; 689863.53, 3333833.87; 689945.95, 
3333652.21; 689948.95, 3333480.88; 689888.68, 3333320.48; 689773.58, 
3333193.53; 688133.75, 3332060.68; 687963.85, 3331956.15; 687770.73, 
3331922.03; 687750.83, 3331780.36; 687652.31, 3331606.91; 687435.02, 
3331473.21; 686480.70, 3331191.98; 686369.22, 3331102.34; 685860.73, 
3329667.19; 685722.17, 3329523.69; 685535.70, 3329452.84; 685421.11, 
3329450.84; 685283.06, 3329488.34; 685142.70, 3329586.62; 685038.17, 
3329756.51; 684075.02, 3330678.79; 683908.10, 3330788.01; 683825.64, 
3330904.90; 683780.13, 3331070.10; 683798.63, 3331240.45; 683861.33, 
3331369.02; 685068.99, 3333929.17; 685144.99, 3334113.61; 685267.82, 
3334233.07; 685426.00, 3334298.93; 685697.77, 3334272.20; 685864.11, 
3334411.77; 686057.99, 3334458.69; 686253.39, 3334418.58; 686431.12, 
3334276.72.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit E is provided at 
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
    (vi) Unit FFS-1, Subunit F--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Kennedy Creek, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 686994.66, 3327715.03; 687031.71, 3327259.31; 687003.02, 
3327257.90; 686974.30, 3327258.30; 686945.66, 3327260.51; 686917.22, 
3327264.50; 686889.08, 3327270.28; 686861.36, 3327277.81; 686834.17, 
3327287.06; 686781.80, 3327310.60; 686756.83, 3327324.79; 686718.31, 
3327349.17; 686687.92, 3327376.34; 686647.89, 3327417.50; 686629.89, 
3327439.88; 686598.28, 3327487.82; 686584.79, 3327513.18; 686562.73, 
3327566.19; 686547.48, 3327621.55; 686539.29, 3327678.38; 686538.28, 
3327735.79; 686544.48, 3327792.87; 686557.79,

[[Page 6746]]

3327848.73; 686577.99, 3327902.48; 686604.76, 3327953.27; 686627.73, 
3327993.87; 686676.26, 3328042.84; 686697.47, 3328062.21; 686719.85, 
3328080.21; 686767.79, 3328111.82; 686819.30, 3328137.17; 686873.59, 
3328155.87; 686929.80, 3328167.62; 686987.03, 3328172.22; 687072.83, 
3328165.62; 687128.68, 3328152.32; 687182.43, 3328132.12; 687233.22, 
3328105.34; 687280.26, 3328072.41; 687342.16, 3328012.63; 687391.77, 
3327942.31; 687417.12, 3327890.79; 687435.81, 3327836.50; 687447.56, 
3327780.29; 687450.76, 3327751.75; 687451.76, 3327694.34; 687445.57, 
3327637.25; 687432.26, 3327581.40; 687423.01, 3327554.21; 687385.28, 
3327476.86; 687352.35, 3327429.82; 687292.58, 3327367.91; 687222.26, 
3327318.30; 687143.89, 3327282.75; 687116.45, 3327274.26; 687088.54, 
3327267.50; 687060.25, 3327262.51; 687031.71, 3327259.31.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit F is provided at 
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
    (vii) Unit FFS-1, Subunit G--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Kennedy Creek and Sumatra, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 692743.43, 3325970.41; 690511.49, 3328333.04; 690352.62, 
3327300.27; 690398.82, 3327359.05; 690435.78, 3327418.40; 690476.94, 
3327458.44; 690522.80, 3327492.99; 690572.10, 3327512.25; 690653.06, 
3327552.10; 690737.82, 3327567.04; 690852.31, 3327561.85; 690961.91, 
3327528.34; 691036.74, 3327485.83; 691102.27, 3327430.06; 691139.64, 
3327386.47; 691184.74, 3327313.17; 691206.80, 3327260.16; 691226.10, 
3327181.87; 691285.53, 3327253.00; 691352.60, 3327306.93; 691428.57, 
3327347.33; 691510.78, 3327372.78; 691596.30, 3327382.38; 691653.66, 
3327379.78; 691709.33, 3327370.19; 691748.27, 3327399.19; 691798.09, 
3327427.72; 691851.10, 3327449.80; 691906.46, 3327465.04; 691963.28, 
3327473.24; 691991.97, 3327474.64; 692049.33, 3327472.04; 692105.91, 
3327462.27; 692160.82, 3327445.48; 692197.42, 3327442.46; 692254.00, 
3327432.70; 692315.34, 3327416.01; 692284.77, 3327496.45; 692273.03, 
3327552.66; 692268.42, 3327609.90; 692271.03, 3327667.26; 692288.33, 
3327751.56; 692308.53, 3327805.31; 692351.03, 3327880.14; 692388.83, 
3327927.78; 692448.61, 3327989.69; 692518.93, 3328039.30; 692570.45, 
3328064.66; 692624.74, 3328083.35; 692709.48, 3328098.30; 692766.90, 
3328099.31; 692823.98, 3328093.10; 694135.90, 3328069.14; 694193.26, 
3328066.53; 694249.84, 3328056.76; 694304.75, 3328039.98; 694357.13, 
3328016.44; 694406.14, 3327986.52; 694451.01, 3327950.70; 694491.04, 
3327909.54; 694525.60, 3327863.68; 694554.14, 3327813.85; 694576.20, 
3327760.84; 694591.45, 3327705.48; 694596.44, 3327677.19; 694601.05, 
3327619.96; 694598.45, 3327562.59; 694588.68, 3327506.01; 694571.89, 
3327451.10; 694548.36, 3327398.72; 694518.44, 3327349.71; 693770.98, 
3326221.08; 693868.81, 3326161.37; 693948.72, 3326079.20; 694005.68, 
3325979.75; 694036.11, 3325869.25; 694038.12, 3325754.65; 695152.74, 
3325675.90; 695209.97, 3325680.51; 695267.33, 3325677.91; 695323.91, 
3325668.13; 695378.82, 3325651.35; 695431.20, 3325627.81; 695480.21, 
3325597.89; 695525.08, 3325562.07; 695565.11, 3325520.90; 695581.45, 
3325500.59; 695608.30, 3325493.29; 695629.02, 3325486.24; 695635.41, 
3325556.71; 695657.97, 3325639.76; 695695.70, 3325717.11; 695728.63, 
3325764.15; 695767.20, 3325806.69; 695810.79, 3325844.06; 695864.85, 
3325870.66; 695911.78, 3325893.76; 695964.54, 3325919.72; 696020.74, 
3325931.47; 696077.98, 3325936.07; 696135.33, 3325933.47; 696219.63, 
3325916.16; 696273.38, 3325895.96; 696324.17, 3325869.18; 696371.21, 
3325836.25; 696413.74, 3325797.68; 696467.67, 3325730.61; 697336.67, 
3324321.07; 697362.02, 3324269.54; 697380.72, 3324215.25; 697392.46, 
3324159.04; 697397.07, 3324101.80; 697394.46, 3324044.44; 697384.69, 
3323987.86; 697367.90, 3323932.94; 697344.37, 3323880.57; 697314.45, 
3323831.55; 697258.68, 3323766.01; 697215.08, 3323728.64; 697167.14, 
3323697.03; 697115.63, 3323671.68; 697061.33, 3323652.99; 697005.13, 
3323641.24; 696947.90, 3323636.64; 696890.54, 3323639.24; 696806.24, 
3323656.54; 696752.49, 3323676.75; 696677.66, 3323719.26; 695425.27, 
3324601.45; 694686.48, 3324259.64; 694636.66, 3324231.10; 694583.65, 
3324209.03; 694528.29, 3324193.78; 694471.46, 3324185.59; 694414.05, 
3324184.59; 694356.97, 3324190.79; 694304.17, 3324203.26; 694297.65, 
3324123.23; 694284.34, 3324067.37; 694264.14, 3324013.62; 694237.37, 
3323962.82; 694185.82, 3323893.91; 694144.65, 3323853.88; 694084.93, 
3323810.79; 694067.06, 3323750.57; 694043.52, 3323698.19; 694010.56, 
3323625.86; 693968.05, 3323551.04; 693932.23, 3323506.16; 693868.68, 
3323448.13; 693820.75, 3323416.52; 693769.23, 3323391.17; 693714.94, 
3323372.47; 693658.74, 3323360.73; 693601.51, 3323356.12; 693544.15, 
3323358.72; 693487.56, 3323368.50; 693432.65, 3323385.28; 693380.29, 
3323408.82; 693331.27, 3323438.74; 693286.40, 3323474.56; 693246.37, 
3323515.72; 693224.54, 3323543.55; 693210.13, 3323497.41; 693186.60, 
3323445.03; 693156.69, 3323396.02; 693120.86, 3323351.14; 693079.70, 
3323311.11; 693033.84, 3323276.55; 692984.02, 3323248.02; 692931.01, 
3323225.95; 692875.65, 3323210.70; 692818.82, 3323202.51; 692761.42, 
3323201.50; 692704.33, 3323207.71; 692648.47, 3323221.01; 692608.55, 
3323235.51; 692570.41, 3323187.10; 692529.25, 3323147.06; 692458.93, 
3323097.45; 692407.41, 3323072.10; 692325.20, 3323046.65; 692268.37, 
3323038.46; 692210.96, 3323037.46; 692125.74, 3323049.44; 692070.83, 
3323066.22; 692011.40, 3323093.76; 691923.51, 3323089.22; 691866.43, 
3323095.42; 691810.57, 3323108.73; 691731.01, 3323141.52; 691682.00, 
3323171.44; 691637.13, 3323207.26; 691597.10, 3323248.43; 691562.54, 
3323294.28; 691534.00, 3323344.11; 691503.44, 3323424.56; 691491.70, 
3323480.77; 691487.09, 3323538.00; 691489.70, 3323595.37; 691507.00, 
3323679.67; 691539.79, 3323759.24; 692318.77, 3325166.83; 692288.21, 
3325247.29; 692273.27, 3325332.04; 692269.31, 3326096.13; 692212.73, 
3326105.90; 692165.53, 3326127.24; 692126.83, 3326144.74; 692092.01, 
3326160.48; 692049.42, 3326179.73; 692011.56, 3326211.96; 691971.53, 
3326253.13; 691936.98, 3326298.98; 691908.44, 3326348.81; 691872.05, 
3326393.76; 691837.49, 3326439.61; 691816.22, 3326475.77; 691767.03, 
3326455.43; 691711.68, 3326440.18; 691654.84, 3326431.99; 691626.16, 
3326430.59; 691568.79, 3326433.19; 691512.21, 3326442.96; 691457.31, 
3326459.75; 691390.25, 3326491.62; 691353.93, 3326429.48; 691298.16, 
3326363.94; 691231.09, 3326310.01; 691155.11, 3326269.60; 691072.90, 
3326244.15; 689760.49, 3325296.16; 689712.55, 3325264.55; 689661.04, 
3325239.20; 689606.75, 3325220.50; 689550.54, 3325208.76; 689493.31, 
3325204.15; 689407.51, 3325210.75; 689324.46, 3325233.31; 689247.12, 
3325271.04; 689157.55, 3325342.54; 689103.62, 3325409.61; 689063.22, 
3325485.59; 689044.52, 3325539.88; 689032.78, 3325596.09; 689028.17, 
3325653.33; 689034.77, 3325739.13; 689233.31, 3327105.96; 689637.00, 
3328600.37; 689861.46, 3329635.49; 689894.25, 3329715.06; 689924.16, 
3329764.07; 689959.98, 3329808.95; 690001.15, 3329848.98; 690047.00, 
3329883.54; 690096.82, 3329912.08; 690149.83, 3329934.15; 690205.19, 
3329949.40;

[[Page 6747]]

690262.02, 3329957.59; 690319.43, 3329958.59; 690404.65, 3329946.62; 
690457.17, 3329926.88; 690511.93, 3329906.30; 690560.94, 3329876.39; 
690626.48, 3329820.61; 690663.84, 3329777.02; 690695.45, 3329729.08; 
690720.81, 3329677.56; 690739.50, 3329623.27; 690751.25, 3329567.06; 
690755.85, 3329509.83; 690749.26, 3329424.02; 690735.95, 3329368.16; 
690529.29, 3328448.39; 690524.80, 3328388.90; 690511.49, 3328333.04.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit G is provided at 
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
    (viii) Unit FFS-1, Subunit H--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Sumatra and Owens Bridge, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 705290.30, 3325041.96; 706646.10, 3324321.38; 706503.21, 
3324314.39; 704109.35, 3324557.65; 703953.05, 3324627.90; 703833.59, 
3324750.75; 703782.98, 3324853.59; 703758.14, 3324994.48; 703787.30, 
3325163.35; 703857.96, 3325287.74; 703940.13, 3325367.66; 704025.87, 
3325418.40; 704016.83, 3325569.76; 704034.13, 3325654.07; 704096.85, 
3325782.66; 704196.22, 3325885.57; 704322.53, 3325952.74; 704463.41, 
3325977.58; 704605.08, 3325957.68; 706601.96, 3325223.59; 706713.46, 
3325197.03; 706859.72, 3325107.75; 706949.37, 3324996.25; 707005.16, 
3324834.22; 707007.16, 3324719.61; 706989.86, 3324635.31; 706942.88, 
3324530.75; 706871.37, 3324441.17; 706796.16, 3324398.25; 706728.31, 
3324346.84; 706646.10, 3324321.38.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit H is provided at 
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
    (ix) Unit FFS-1, Subunit I--Liberty County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Owens Bridge, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 712262.72, 3326181.63; 712356.33, 3325733.94; 712270.80, 
3325724.34; 712213.44, 3325726.95; 712129.13, 3325744.25; 712101.94, 
3325753.51; 712024.58, 3325791.24; 711977.54, 3325824.17; 711955.67, 
3325842.79; 711915.63, 3325883.96; 711881.07, 3325929.82; 711852.53, 
3325979.66; 711830.47, 3326032.67; 711815.21, 3326088.04; 711807.02, 
3326144.87; 711805.62, 3326173.57; 711808.22, 3326230.94; 711817.99, 
3326287.52; 711834.78, 3326342.44; 711858.32, 3326394.82; 711888.24, 
3326443.84; 711905.44, 3326466.84; 711944.01, 3326509.39; 711965.23, 
3326528.76; 711987.61, 3326546.76; 712011.09, 3326563.32; 712060.92, 
3326591.86; 712087.08, 3326603.73; 712113.93, 3326613.93; 712169.29, 
3326629.18; 712226.13, 3326637.37; 712254.82, 3326638.78; 712312.18, 
3326636.17; 712368.77, 3326626.40; 712423.68, 3326609.61; 712476.06, 
3326586.07; 712525.08, 3326556.15; 712590.62, 3326500.37; 712644.55, 
3326433.30; 712684.96, 3326357.30; 712703.65, 3326303.01; 712715.40, 
3326246.79; 712720.00, 3326189.55; 712717.40, 3326132.18; 712707.63, 
3326075.60; 712700.10, 3326047.87; 712674.07, 3325977.60; 712653.11, 
3325943.32; 712601.56, 3325874.40; 712560.39, 3325834.36; 712538.01, 
3325816.36; 712514.54, 3325799.80; 712464.71, 3325771.26; 712411.69, 
3325749.19; 712356.33, 3325733.94.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-1, Subunit I is provided at 
paragraph (6)(x)(B) of this entry.
    (x) Unit FFS-1, Subunit J--Franklin County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Fort Gadsen, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 696448.29, 3312586.05; 697417.53, 3311729.38; 697304.09, 
3311713.04; 697218.29, 3311719.64; 697135.24, 3311742.21; 697057.90, 
3311779.94; 695449.24, 3312550.89; 695396.87, 3312574.43; 695324.87, 
3312621.56; 695282.33, 3312660.13; 695228.41, 3312727.20; 695188.01, 
3312803.20; 695162.57, 3312885.41; 695152.98, 3312970.93; 695159.58, 
3313056.74; 695182.15, 3313139.79; 695219.88, 3313217.14; 695271.43, 
3313286.05; 695335.05, 3313350.76; 695405.38, 3313400.37; 695456.90, 
3313425.72; 695511.18, 3313444.41; 695595.94, 3313459.35; 695710.43, 
3313454.14; 695820.03, 3313420.63; 697427.52, 3312615.68; 697509.40, 
3312574.69; 697581.41, 3312527.56; 697643.31, 3312467.77; 697706.40, 
3312372.08; 697743.71, 3312263.71; 697752.89, 3312149.46; 697733.38, 
3312036.51; 697686.39, 3311931.97; 697653.45, 3311884.93; 697593.67, 
3311823.03; 697523.35, 3311773.42; 697417.53, 3311729.38.
    (B) Note: Map of Unit FFS-1 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6748]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.001

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 6749]]

    (xi) Unit FFS-3, Subunit A--Wakulla County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps St. Marks and St. Marks NE, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 775789.22, 3340665.92; 778066.61, 3340484.87; 777670.88, 
3338778.31; 777533.15, 3338184.41; 777525.56, 3338156.70; 777516.42, 
3338129.40; 777505.42, 3338102.83; 777492.86, 3338076.99; 777478.74, 
3338052.00; 777471.13, 3338040.27; 777482.70, 3338036.35; 777509.30, 
3338025.48; 777535.17, 3338012.93; 777560.12, 3337998.80; 777584.24, 
3337982.99; 777607.24, 3337965.82; 777629.12, 3337947.29; 777649.88, 
3337927.29; 777669.21, 3337906.14; 777687.24, 3337883.74; 777703.84, 
3337860.31; 777714.90, 3337842.39; 777724.48, 3337852.29; 777745.69, 
3337871.69; 777768.09, 3337889.78; 777791.49, 3337906.35; 777815.99, 
3337921.39; 777841.30, 3337934.91; 777867.51, 3337946.89; 777894.35, 
3337957.11; 777921.81, 3337965.57; 777949.70, 3337972.38; 777978.02, 
3337977.42; 777990.29, 3337977.52; 778007.58, 3337977.78; 778035.40, 
3337978.19; 778064.31, 3337978.62; 778092.26, 3337979.03; 778121.08, 
3337975.61; 778149.29, 3337969.88; 778177.06, 3337962.38; 778204.20, 
3337953.08; 778230.80, 3337942.21; 778256.67, 3337929.67; 778281.62, 
3337915.43; 778305.74, 3337899.73; 778328.75, 3337882.56; 778350.72, 
3337863.93; 778371.38, 3337844.03; 778390.82, 3337822.89; 778408.84, 
3337800.49; 778425.45, 3337776.95; 778440.53, 3337752.59; 778454.00, 
3337727.19; 778465.95, 3337700.97; 778476.17, 3337674.16; 778484.68, 
3337646.75; 778491.46, 3337618.85; 778496.52, 3337590.46; 778499.75, 
3337561.92; 778501.16, 3337533.22; 778500.82, 3337504.47; 778498.66, 
3337475.90; 778494.65, 3337447.40; 778488.90, 3337419.29; 778481.41, 
3337391.48; 778472.17, 3337364.28; 778461.27, 3337337.71; 778448.71, 
3337311.87; 778434.49, 3337286.88; 778418.81, 3337262.74; 778401.64, 
3337239.78; 778383.01, 3337217.89; 778363.09, 3337197.19; 778341.88, 
3337177.80; 778319.48, 3337159.70; 778296.08, 3337143.13; 778271.58, 
3337128.08; 778246.27, 3337114.46; 778220.05, 3337102.59; 778193.21, 
3337092.37; 778165.75, 3337083.80; 778137.85, 3337077.10; 778109.53, 
3337072.05; 778080.97, 3337068.78; 778052.27, 3337067.39; 778023.61, 
3337067.77; 777994.91, 3337069.93; 777966.46, 3337073.87; 777938.25, 
3337079.59; 777910.58, 3337087.10; 777883.34, 3337096.29; 777856.73, 
3337107.26; 777830.96, 3337119.82; 777805.91, 3337133.94; 777781.88, 
3337149.75; 777758.79, 3337166.92; 777736.91, 3337185.45; 777716.25, 
3337205.45; 777696.81, 3337226.60; 777678.79, 3337249.00; 777662.19, 
3337272.43; 777651.12, 3337290.35; 777641.54, 3337280.46; 777620.33, 
3337261.06; 777598.03, 3337242.96; 777574.53, 3337226.39; 777550.03, 
3337211.35; 777524.72, 3337197.84; 777498.59, 3337185.86; 777471.75, 
3337175.64; 777444.29, 3337167.07; 777416.30, 3337160.37; 777410.25, 
3337159.33; 777411.85, 3337145.51; 777413.25, 3337116.80; 777412.92, 
3337088.06; 777410.75, 3337059.38; 777406.74, 3337030.88; 777400.99, 
3337002.77; 777393.49, 3336975.07; 777384.25, 3336947.76; 777373.35, 
3336921.19; 777360.79, 3336895.35; 777346.57, 3336870.36; 777330.87, 
3336846.33; 777313.71, 3336823.27; 777295.07, 3336801.38; 777275.15, 
3336780.69; 777253.94, 3336761.29; 777231.63, 3336743.20; 777208.13, 
3336726.63; 777183.73, 3336711.59; 777158.32, 3336698.08; 777132.19, 
3336686.10; 777105.35, 3336675.88; 777077.88, 3336667.42; 777049.99, 
3336660.62; 777021.67, 3336655.58; 776993.11, 3336652.30; 776964.40, 
3336650.92; 776935.65, 3336651.30; 776907.05, 3336653.46; 776878.50, 
3336657.40; 776850.38, 3336663.13; 776822.61, 3336670.64; 776795.47, 
3336679.83; 776768.87, 3336690.81; 776742.99, 3336703.36; 776718.05, 
3336717.49; 776693.93, 3336733.19; 776670.93, 3336750.37; 776648.95, 
3336769.01; 776628.29, 3336788.90; 776608.85, 3336810.16; 776590.83, 
3336832.56; 776574.23, 3336856.00; 776570.11, 3336862.66; 776553.01, 
3336856.13; 776525.55, 3336847.67; 776497.65, 3336840.87; 776469.33, 
3336835.83; 776440.77, 3336832.56; 776412.07, 3336831.17; 776383.32, 
3336831.56; 776354.72, 3336833.72; 776326.26, 3336837.66; 776298.05, 
3336843.39; 776270.38, 3336850.90; 776243.14, 3336860.09; 776216.54, 
3336871.08; 776190.67, 3336883.63; 776165.72, 3336897.76; 776141.60, 
3336913.46; 776118.60, 3336930.63; 776096.72, 3336949.28; 776075.97, 
3336969.17; 776056.63, 3336990.43; 776038.52, 3337012.83; 776021.92, 
3337036.27; 776006.84, 3337060.74; 775993.38, 3337086.03; 775981.43, 
3337112.25; 775971.21, 3337139.07; 775962.71, 3337166.48; 775955.93, 
3337194.49; 775950.88, 3337222.77; 775947.66, 3337251.31; 775946.17, 
3337280.01; 775946.60, 3337308.76; 775948.78, 3337337.32; 775952.69, 
3337365.83; 775958.44, 3337394.04; 775965.94, 3337421.74; 775975.19, 
3337448.94; 775986.10, 3337475.51; 775998.66, 3337501.34; 776012.79, 
3337526.33; 776028.58, 3337550.47; 776045.74, 3337573.53; 776064.28, 
3337595.41; 776084.30, 3337616.11; 776105.42, 3337635.50; 776127.82, 
3337653.48; 776151.32, 3337670.16; 776175.72, 3337685.20; 776201.13, 
3337698.71; 776227.26, 3337710.57; 776244.06, 3337717.09; 776242.57, 
3337718.94; 776232.10, 3337713.35; 776205.89, 3337701.38; 776179.04, 
3337691.16; 776151.58, 3337682.70; 776123.69, 3337675.90; 776095.37, 
3337670.86; 776066.81, 3337667.59; 776038.11, 3337666.20; 776009.36, 
3337666.59; 775980.76, 3337668.76; 775952.31, 3337672.70; 775924.10, 
3337678.43; 775896.43, 3337685.94; 775869.20, 3337695.13; 775842.60, 
3337706.12; 775816.73, 3337718.67; 775791.78, 3337732.80; 775767.66, 
3337748.50; 775744.67, 3337765.68; 775722.70, 3337784.32; 775702.04, 
3337804.22; 775682.61, 3337825.48; 775664.59, 3337847.77; 775648.00, 
3337871.32; 775632.92, 3337895.68; 775619.36, 3337921.08; 775607.52, 
3337947.30; 775597.30, 3337974.11; 775588.70, 3338001.52; 775581.93, 
3338029.42; 775576.97, 3338057.81; 775573.65, 3338086.36; 775572.26, 
3338115.06; 775572.59, 3338143.80; 775574.77, 3338172.37; 775578.78, 
3338200.87; 775584.54, 3338228.98; 775592.03, 3338256.79; 775601.19, 
3338283.98; 775612.19, 3338310.55; 775624.75, 3338336.39; 775638.88, 
3338361.37; 775654.57, 3338385.51; 775671.73, 3338408.46; 775690.37, 
3338430.46; 775710.29, 3338451.15; 775731.50, 3338470.54; 775753.90, 
3338488.52; 775777.31, 3338505.09; 775801.80, 3338520.24; 775827.21, 
3338533.75; 775853.33, 3338545.61; 775880.17, 3338555.94; 775907.63, 
3338564.39; 775935.52, 3338571.20; 775963.84, 3338576.23; 775992.39, 
3338579.50; 776021.09, 3338580.89; 776049.84, 3338580.50; 776078.53, 
3338578.34; 776106.98, 3338574.40; 776135.09, 3338568.67; 776162.85, 
3338561.16; 776190.08, 3338551.97; 776216.69, 3338540.99; 776242.46, 
3338528.43; 776267.50, 3338514.30; 776291.52, 3338498.60; 776314.61, 
3338481.43; 776336.49, 3338462.78; 776357.24, 3338442.89; 776376.58, 
3338421.63; 776392.70, 3338401.62; 776403.17, 3338407.21; 776429.29, 
3338419.08; 776456.13, 3338429.40; 776483.59, 3338437.86; 776511.57, 
3338444.67; 776539.80, 3338449.71; 776568.35, 3338452.98; 776597.05, 
3338454.37; 776625.80, 3338453.98; 776654.49, 3338451.82; 776660.01, 
3338451.07; 776670.54, 3338476.85; 776827.26, 3339164.36; 777053.70, 
3340157.85;

[[Page 6750]]

775510.45, 3340235.09; 775168.35, 3339961.10; 775144.54, 3339940.36; 
775091.43, 3339897.57; 774949.30, 3339783.09; 774965.89, 3339759.65; 
774980.97, 3339735.17; 774994.43, 3339709.77; 775006.36, 3339683.66; 
775016.58, 3339656.74; 775025.08, 3339629.33; 775031.95, 3339601.43; 
775036.90, 3339573.15; 775039.60, 3339549.86; 775040.22, 3339544.61; 
775041.61, 3339515.91; 775041.27, 3339487.16; 775041.13, 3339484.94; 
775057.54, 3339480.47; 775084.67, 3339471.27; 775111.27, 3339460.29; 
775137.13, 3339447.74; 775162.17, 3339433.61; 775186.18, 3339417.90; 
775209.27, 3339400.73; 775231.15, 3339382.08; 775251.80, 3339362.18; 
775271.23, 3339340.93; 775289.24, 3339318.63; 775305.83, 3339295.08; 
775321.00, 3339270.72; 775334.47, 3339245.32; 775346.40, 3339219.21; 
775356.62, 3339192.29; 775365.12, 3339164.87; 775371.89, 3339136.97; 
775376.94, 3339108.70; 775380.17, 3339080.04; 775381.66, 3339051.34; 
775381.32, 3339022.71; 775379.14, 3338994.03; 775375.13, 3338965.53; 
775369.38, 3338937.42; 775361.88, 3338909.61; 775352.63, 3338882.42; 
775341.73, 3338855.85; 775329.16, 3338830.02; 775315.04, 3338805.03; 
775299.35, 3338780.89; 775282.09, 3338757.94; 775263.54, 3338735.95; 
775243.62, 3338715.26; 775222.41, 3338695.86; 775200.01, 3338677.88; 
775176.51, 3338661.32; 775152.11, 3338646.17; 775126.70, 3338632.67; 
775100.58, 3338620.80; 775073.74, 3338610.48; 775046.28, 3338602.03; 
775018.39, 3338595.22; 774990.07, 3338590.19; 774961.52, 3338586.92; 
774932.82, 3338585.54; 774904.08, 3338585.82; 774875.38, 3338588.09; 
774846.93, 3338592.04; 774818.83, 3338597.77; 774791.06, 3338605.29; 
774763.83, 3338614.48; 774737.24, 3338625.35; 774711.37, 3338638.02; 
774686.43, 3338652.15; 774662.31, 3338667.86; 774639.71, 3338684.71; 
774638.37, 3338684.57; 774609.67, 3338683.18; 774582.28, 3338683.50; 
774581.67, 3338680.60; 774574.17, 3338652.89; 774564.92, 3338625.59; 
774554.01, 3338599.02; 774541.45, 3338573.19; 774527.32, 3338548.21; 
774511.63, 3338524.18; 774494.37, 3338501.12; 774475.82, 3338479.24; 
774455.89, 3338458.55; 774434.69, 3338439.05; 774412.28, 3338421.07; 
774388.88, 3338404.51; 774364.38, 3338389.36; 774338.97, 3338375.86; 
774312.85, 3338364.00; 774286.01, 3338353.68; 774258.55, 3338345.22; 
774230.66, 3338338.43; 774202.34, 3338333.39; 774173.78, 3338330.13; 
774145.08, 3338328.74; 774116.34, 3338329.03; 774087.74, 3338331.20; 
774059.19, 3338335.25; 774031.09, 3338340.99; 774003.32, 3338348.51; 
773976.09, 3338357.70; 773949.59, 3338368.58; 773923.73, 3338381.14; 
773898.69, 3338395.38; 773874.67, 3338411.09; 773851.58, 3338428.26; 
773829.72, 3338446.80; 773808.97, 3338466.81; 773789.64, 3338487.96; 
773771.53, 3338510.37; 773754.94, 3338533.81; 773739.86, 3338558.28; 
773726.41, 3338583.58; 773714.47, 3338609.79; 773704.26, 3338636.61; 
773695.67, 3338664.02; 773688.90, 3338692.03; 773683.85, 3338720.31; 
773680.63, 3338748.86; 773679.24, 3338777.56; 773679.59, 3338806.30; 
773681.77, 3338834.98; 773685.69, 3338863.37; 773691.44, 3338891.58; 
773698.95, 3338919.28; 773708.20, 3338946.47; 773719.11, 3338973.04; 
773731.67, 3338998.98; 773745.80, 3339023.97; 773761.50, 3339047.99; 
773778.76, 3339071.05; 773797.31, 3339092.93; 773817.23, 3339113.62; 
773838.44, 3339133.01; 773860.84, 3339151.10; 773884.34, 3339167.66; 
773908.74, 3339182.80; 773934.15, 3339196.31; 773960.27, 3339208.16; 
773987.11, 3339218.38; 774014.57, 3339226.94; 774042.46, 3339233.74; 
774070.77, 3339238.77; 774099.33, 3339242.04; 774128.03, 3339243.42; 
774155.42, 3339242.99; 774156.02, 3339246.00; 774163.52, 3339273.71; 
774172.77, 3339301.01; 774174.22, 3339304.59; 774174.02, 3339304.92; 
774162.19, 3339331.03; 774151.88, 3339357.85; 774143.38, 3339385.37; 
774136.61, 3339413.27; 774131.56, 3339441.55; 774128.34, 3339470.09; 
774126.85, 3339498.79; 774127.29, 3339527.54; 774129.37, 3339556.21; 
774133.39, 3339584.61; 774139.14, 3339612.82; 774146.65, 3339640.52; 
774150.33, 3339651.49; 774130.27, 3339662.97; 774106.16, 3339678.68; 
774083.17, 3339695.85; 774061.21, 3339714.39; 774040.56, 3339734.40; 
774021.14, 3339755.55; 774003.13, 3339777.95; 773986.54, 3339801.39; 
773971.46, 3339825.87; 773957.91, 3339851.27; 773945.98, 3339877.38; 
773935.76, 3339904.19; 773927.27, 3339931.72; 773926.18, 3339936.26; 
773926.14, 3339936.25; 773920.50, 3339959.62; 773915.45, 3339987.90; 
773912.23, 3340016.44; 773910.75, 3340045.14; 773910.93, 3340060.90; 
773909.63, 3340058.87; 773892.47, 3340035.81; 773873.92, 3340013.93; 
773853.91, 3339993.24; 773832.70, 3339973.85; 773810.39, 3339955.76; 
773786.90, 3339939.20; 773777.78, 3339933.61; 773777.91, 3339933.62; 
773762.40, 3339924.06; 773737.09, 3339910.55; 773710.97, 3339898.70; 
773684.04, 3339888.48; 773656.68, 3339879.92; 773628.70, 3339873.12; 
773600.38, 3339868.09; 773571.83, 3339864.83; 773543.13, 3339863.45; 
773514.39, 3339863.73; 773485.80, 3339865.90; 773476.45, 3339867.03; 
773476.45, 3339867.18; 773457.35, 3339869.96; 773429.15, 3339875.70; 
773401.39, 3339883.21; 773374.17, 3339892.41; 773347.58, 3339903.29; 
773321.81, 3339915.85; 773296.78, 3339930.09; 773272.67, 3339945.80; 
773249.68, 3339962.98; 773227.82, 3339981.52; 773207.07, 3340001.53; 
773187.65, 3340022.68; 773169.64, 3340045.08; 773153.05, 3340068.52; 
773137.98, 3340093.00; 773124.43, 3340118.29; 773112.50, 3340144.51; 
773102.29, 3340171.33; 773093.80, 3340198.74; 773086.93, 3340226.64; 
773081.99, 3340255.03; 773078.67, 3340283.58; 773077.28, 3340312.28; 
773077.63, 3340341.02; 773079.81, 3340369.59; 773083.82, 3340398.09; 
773089.48, 3340426.30; 773096.99, 3340454.00; 773106.24, 3340481.19; 
773117.15, 3340507.76; 773129.71, 3340533.59; 773143.94, 3340558.68; 
773159.63, 3340582.71; 773176.80, 3340605.77; 773195.44, 3340627.64; 
773215.36, 3340648.33; 773236.57, 3340667.72; 773240.54, 3340670.93; 
774190.69, 3341600.54; 774207.73, 3341623.69; 774226.19, 3341645.71; 
774245.99, 3341666.54; 774267.06, 3341686.08; 774289.32, 3341704.26; 
774312.67, 3341721.00; 774337.03, 3341736.25; 774362.30, 3341749.94; 
774388.38, 3341762.01; 774415.16, 3341772.42; 774442.55, 3341781.13; 
774470.43, 3341788.10; 774498.69, 3341793.31; 774527.22, 3341796.73; 
774555.91, 3341798.36; 774584.65, 3341798.18; 774613.32, 3341796.20; 
774641.80, 3341792.42; 774670.00, 3341786.86; 774697.79, 3341779.54; 
774725.06, 3341770.48; 774751.71, 3341759.74; 774777.64, 3341747.34; 
774802.74, 3341733.34; 774826.90, 3341717.79; 774850.05, 3341700.75; 
774872.07, 3341682.30; 774892.90, 3341662.49; 774912.44, 3341641.42; 
775378.58, 3341173.26; 775544.57, 3341006.80; 777609.30, 3341044.76; 
777638.03, 3341044.58; 777666.70, 3341042.60; 777680.70, 3341040.35; 
777695.19, 3341038.82; 777723.39, 3341033.26; 777751.18, 3341025.93; 
777778.45, 3341016.88; 777805.10, 3341006.14; 777831.03, 3340993.74; 
777856.13, 3340979.74; 777880.29, 3340964.19; 777903.44, 3340947.15; 
777925.47, 3340928.69; 777946.29, 3340908.89; 777965.83, 3340887.82; 
777984.01, 3340865.56; 778000.76, 3340842.21; 778016.00, 3340817.85; 
778029.69, 3340792.58; 778041.76, 3340766.50; 778052.18, 3340739.71; 
778060.89, 3340712.33; 778067.86, 3340684.45; 778073.07, 3340656.19;

[[Page 6751]]

778076.49, 3340627.65; 778078.11, 3340598.96; 778077.93, 3340570.22; 
778075.95, 3340541.55; 778072.17, 3340513.07; 778066.61, 3340484.87.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-3, Subunit A is provided at 
paragraph (6)(xiii)(B) of this entry.
    (xii) Unit FFS-3, Subunit B--Wakulla and Jefferson Counties, 
Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map St. Marks NE, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 781813.02, 3338564.97; 780854.75, 3336748.56; 780826.19, 
3336745.28; 780797.49, 3336743.88; 780768.74, 3336744.25; 780751.83, 
3336745.48; 780740.73, 3336730.55; 780722.10, 3336708.66; 780702.18, 
3336687.96; 780680.97, 3336668.56; 780658.57, 3336650.57; 780635.18, 
3336633.88; 780610.68, 3336618.83; 780585.37, 3336605.31; 780559.15, 
3336593.44; 780532.31, 3336583.21; 780504.85, 3336574.63; 780476.95, 
3336567.82; 780448.63, 3336562.88; 780420.07, 3336559.60; 780391.36, 
3336558.20; 780362.71, 3336558.58; 780334.01, 3336560.73; 780305.55, 
3336564.66; 780277.43, 3336570.38; 780249.66, 3336577.88; 780222.42, 
3336587.17; 780195.81, 3336598.03; 780170.02, 3336610.69; 780144.97, 
3336624.81; 780120.94, 3336640.51; 780097.94, 3336657.67; 780075.95, 
3336676.31; 780055.29, 3336696.20; 780035.94, 3336717.45; 780017.82, 
3336739.85; 780001.31, 3336763.28; 779986.22, 3336787.75; 779972.64, 
3336813.14; 779960.79, 3336839.25; 779950.56, 3336866.06; 779941.95, 
3336893.58; 779935.16, 3336921.48; 779930.20, 3336949.76; 779926.96, 
3336978.30; 779925.49, 3337005.78; 779913.72, 3337013.47; 779890.72, 
3337030.63; 779868.74, 3337049.27; 779848.07, 3337069.16; 779828.63, 
3337090.41; 779810.60, 3337112.81; 779794.09, 3337136.24; 779779.00, 
3337160.71; 779765.43, 3337186.11; 779753.58, 3337212.21; 779743.35, 
3337239.02; 779734.74, 3337266.54; 779727.96, 3337294.44; 779722.99, 
3337322.72; 779719.76, 3337351.26; 779718.26, 3337379.96; 779718.68, 
3337408.71; 779720.84, 3337437.39; 779724.75, 3337465.89; 779730.49, 
3337494.00; 779738.08, 3337521.71; 779747.22, 3337548.90; 779758.21, 
3337575.59; 779770.77, 3337601.43; 779784.89, 3337626.42; 779800.67, 
3337650.46; 779817.83, 3337673.53; 779836.46, 3337695.42; 779856.38, 
3337716.12; 779877.58, 3337735.52; 779899.88, 3337753.51; 779923.38, 
3337770.08; 779947.87, 3337785.24; 779973.18, 3337798.76; 779999.40, 
3337810.63; 780026.23, 3337820.86; 780046.61, 3337827.26; 780031.54, 
3337835.75; 780007.52, 3337851.45; 779984.42, 3337868.61; 779962.53, 
3337887.25; 779941.87, 3337907.14; 779922.43, 3337928.39; 779904.40, 
3337950.79; 779887.80, 3337974.22; 779872.71, 3337998.69; 779859.23, 
3338024.09; 779859.02, 3338024.55; 779847.29, 3338050.19; 779837.06, 
3338077.00; 779828.54, 3338104.52; 779821.76, 3338132.42; 779816.70, 
3338160.70; 779813.46, 3338189.24; 779812.06, 3338217.94; 779812.38, 
3338246.69; 779814.55, 3338275.37; 779818.54, 3338303.87; 779824.29, 
3338331.98; 779831.78, 3338359.69; 779841.02, 3338386.88; 779851.91, 
3338413.57; 779864.56, 3338439.41; 779878.68, 3338464.40; 779894.36, 
3338488.43; 779911.61, 3338511.51; 779930.15, 3338533.40; 779950.16, 
3338554.10; 779971.36, 3338573.50; 779993.66, 3338591.49; 780017.15, 
3338608.07; 780041.65, 3338623.23; 780066.95, 3338636.74; 780093.17, 
3338648.62; 780120.00, 3338658.84; 780147.46, 3338667.42; 780175.35, 
3338674.13; 780203.67, 3338679.18; 780232.22, 3338682.46; 780260.92, 
3338683.85; 780289.67, 3338683.48; 780318.27, 3338681.32; 781659.28, 
3338623.11; 783371.06, 3341075.49; 783388.08, 3341098.65; 783406.52, 
3341120.69; 783426.31, 3341141.53; 783447.37, 3341161.09; 783469.61, 
3341179.28; 783492.96, 3341196.05; 783517.31, 3341211.31; 783542.57, 
3341225.02; 783568.64, 3341237.11; 783595.42, 3341247.54; 783622.80, 
3341256.27; 783650.68, 3341263.26; 783678.94, 3341268.49; 783707.47, 
3341271.93; 783736.16, 3341273.58; 783764.90, 3341273.42; 783793.57, 
3341271.45; 783822.06, 3341267.69; 783850.26, 3341262.15; 783878.06, 
3341254.85; 783905.34, 3341245.82; 783932.00, 3341235.09; 783957.94, 
3341222.71; 783983.05, 3341208.72; 784007.23, 3341193.19; 784030.38, 
3341176.17; 784052.42, 3341157.73; 784073.27, 3341137.94; 784092.82, 
3341116.88; 784111.02, 3341094.63; 784127.78, 3341071.29; 784143.04, 
3341046.94; 784156.75, 3341021.68; 784168.84, 3340995.61; 784179.27, 
3340968.83; 784188.00, 3340941.45; 784194.99, 3340913.57; 784200.22, 
3340885.31; 784203.67, 3340856.78; 784205.31, 3340828.09; 784205.15, 
3340799.35; 784203.19, 3340770.67; 784199.43, 3340742.18; 784193.88, 
3340713.98; 784186.58, 3340686.19; 784177.55, 3340658.90; 784166.82, 
3340632.24; 784154.44, 3340606.31; 784140.46, 3340581.20; 784124.92, 
3340557.02; 782277.60, 3337914.11; 782294.12, 3337890.57; 782309.21, 
3337866.10; 782322.78, 3337840.82; 782334.64, 3337814.60; 782344.88, 
3337787.79; 782353.40, 3337760.27; 782360.19, 3337732.38; 782365.26, 
3337704.10; 782368.50, 3337675.56; 782369.91, 3337646.86; 782369.59, 
3337618.11; 782367.34, 3337589.43; 782363.44, 3337561.03; 782357.70, 
3337532.81; 782350.22, 3337505.10; 782340.98, 3337477.90; 782330.00, 
3337451.33; 782317.45, 3337425.48; 782303.24, 3337400.49; 782287.56, 
3337376.34; 782270.41, 3337353.37; 782251.78, 3337331.48; 782231.86, 
3337310.77; 782210.66, 3337291.37; 782188.27, 3337273.26; 782164.78, 
3337256.68; 782140.38, 3337241.63; 782114.97, 3337228.11; 781683.92, 
3337059.84; 780938.43, 3336768.89; 780910.97, 3336760.31; 780883.08, 
3336753.50; 780854.75, 3336748.56.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-3, Subunit B is located at 
paragraph (6)(xiii)(B) of this entry.
    (xiii) Unit FFS-3, Subunit C--Jefferson County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Cody, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 784571.80, 3351736.64; 784608.07, 3351280.60; 784579.36, 
3351279.22; 784554.83, 3351279.59; 784550.62, 3351279.65; 784521.97, 
3351281.88; 784493.51, 3351285.91; 784465.37, 3351291.71; 784437.64, 
3351299.27; 784410.44, 3351308.56; 784383.88, 3351319.54; 784358.06, 
3351332.16; 784333.09, 3351346.38; 784309.05, 3351362.14; 784286.06, 
3351379.37; 784264.19, 3351398.02; 784243.53, 3351418.00; 784224.17, 
3351439.25; 784206.19, 3351461.66; 784189.64, 3351485.16; 784174.61, 
3351509.65; 784161.14, 3351535.04; 784149.29, 3351561.22; 784139.11, 
3351588.10; 784130.64, 3351615.56; 784123.90, 3351643.50; 784118.94, 
3351671.81; 784115.76, 3351700.37; 784114.38, 3351729.08; 784114.81, 
3351757.81; 784117.04, 3351786.47; 784121.07, 3351814.92; 784126.87, 
3351843.07; 784134.43, 3351870.80; 784143.72, 3351897.99; 784154.70, 
3351924.55; 784167.32, 3351950.37; 784181.54, 3351975.35; 784197.30, 
3351999.38; 784214.53, 3352022.38; 784233.18, 3352044.25; 784253.16, 
3352064.90; 784274.40, 3352084.26; 784296.82, 3352102.25; 784320.32, 
3352118.79; 784344.81, 3352133.83; 784370.20, 3352147.30; 784396.38, 
3352159.15; 784423.26, 3352169.33; 784450.72, 3352177.80; 784478.66, 
3352184.53; 784506.97, 3352189.50; 784535.53, 3352192.68; 784558.55, 
3352193.78; 784564.24, 3352194.05; 784592.97, 3352193.63; 784621.63, 
3352191.40; 784650.08, 3352187.37; 784678.23, 3352181.56; 784705.96, 
3352174.00; 784733.15, 3352164.72; 784759.71,

[[Page 6752]]

3352153.74; 784785.53, 3352141.12; 784810.51, 3352126.90; 784834.54, 
3352111.14; 784857.54, 3352093.90; 784879.41, 3352075.26; 784900.06, 
3352055.27; 784919.42, 3352034.03; 784937.41, 3352011.62; 784953.96, 
3351988.12; 784968.99, 3351963.63; 784982.46, 3351938.24; 784994.31, 
3351912.06; 785004.49, 3351885.18; 785012.96, 3351857.72; 785019.70, 
3351829.78; 785024.66, 3351801.47; 785027.84, 3351772.91; 785029.21, 
3351744.20; 785028.79, 3351715.46; 785026.56, 3351686.81; 785022.53, 
3351658.36; 785016.72, 3351630.21; 785009.16, 3351602.48; 784999.88, 
3351575.28; 784988.90, 3351548.72; 784976.28, 3351522.90; 784962.06, 
3351497.93; 784946.30, 3351473.89; 784929.06, 3351450.90; 784910.42, 
3351429.03; 784890.43, 3351408.37; 784869.19, 3351389.01; 784846.78, 
3351371.03; 784823.28, 3351354.48; 784798.79, 3351339.44; 784773.40, 
3351325.98; 784747.21, 3351314.13; 784720.34, 3351303.95; 784692.88, 
3351295.47; 784664.94, 3351288.74; 784636.63, 3351283.78; 784608.07, 
3351280.60.
    (B) Note: Map of Unit FFS-3 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6753]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.002

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 6754]]

    (xiv) Unit FFS-4, Subunit A--Baker County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Big Gum Swamp and Sanderson North, 
Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 17N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 367084.38, 3347273.00; 367857.36, 3347865.13; 367885.57, 
3347850.05; 367910.67, 3347848.97; 367939.21, 3347845.97; 367967.54, 
3347841.08; 367995.46, 3347834.54; 368022.88, 3347826.11; 368076.03, 
3347804.41; 368126.01, 3347776.10; 368149.58, 3347759.63; 368172.08, 
3347741.85; 368213.36, 3347702.00; 368249.49, 3347657.34; 368279.60, 
3347608.54; 368303.41, 3347556.26; 368320.55, 3347501.41; 368326.47, 
3347473.30; 368330.56, 3347444.98; 368333.52, 3347387.64; 368329.18, 
3347330.38; 368324.31, 3347302.07; 368309.40, 3347246.60; 368287.59, 
3347193.55; 368274.29, 3347168.10; 368242.92, 3347120.04; 368205.82, 
3347076.15; 368163.49, 3347037.42; 368116.61, 3347004.29; 368066.05, 
3346977.19; 368012.39, 3346956.67; 367956.61, 3346943.15; 366301.34, 
3346652.76; 366243.94, 3346653.45; 366187.08, 3346661.34; 366131.66, 
3346676.29; 366078.54, 3346698.07; 366028.58, 3346726.33; 365982.55, 
3346760.63; 365941.18, 3346800.43; 365889.28, 3346869.05; 365862.23, 
3346919.69; 365841.75, 3346973.32; 365828.15, 3347029.09; 365821.64, 
3347086.12; 365822.34, 3347143.52; 365830.23, 3347200.39; 365845.18, 
3347255.81; 365866.95, 3347308.92; 365895.22, 3347358.89; 365948.77, 
3347426.23; 365991.09, 3347465.01; 366037.94, 3347498.19; 366088.58, 
3347525.23; 366142.20, 3347545.72; 367577.52, 3347903.88; 367634.57, 
3347910.39; 367692.00, 3347909.70; 367748.88, 3347901.80; 367804.22, 
3347886.84; 367857.36, 3347865.13.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-3, Subunit A is provided at 
paragraph (6)(xv)(B) of this entry.
    (xv) Unit FFS-4, Subunit B: Baker County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Sanderson North, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 17N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 372674.15, 3352411.84; 372686.30, 3351954.90; 372657.58, 
3351955.03; 372628.93, 3351956.98; 372600.46, 3351960.71; 372572.28, 
3351966.23; 372544.50, 3351973.51; 372517.23, 3351982.51; 372490.58, 
3351993.21; 372464.66, 3352005.56; 372439.56, 3352019.52; 372415.39, 
3352035.02; 372392.24, 3352052.02; 372370.20, 3352070.43; 372349.36, 
3352090.19; 372329.81, 3352111.21; 372311.61, 3352133.43; 372294.84, 
3352156.74; 372279.57, 3352181.06; 372265.86, 3352206.29; 372253.76, 
3352232.34; 372243.32, 3352259.09; 372234.58, 3352286.44; 372227.57, 
3352314.29; 372222.33, 3352342.52; 372218.86, 3352371.03; 372217.20, 
3352399.70; 372217.34, 3352428.41; 372219.28, 3352457.06; 372223.02, 
3352485.54; 372228.54, 3352513.72; 372235.81, 3352541.50; 372244.82, 
3352568.77; 372255.52, 3352595.41; 372267.87, 3352621.34; 372281.83, 
3352646.43; 372297.33, 3352670.61; 372314.32, 3352693.76; 372332.73, 
3352715.79; 372352.49, 3352736.63; 372373.52, 3352756.19; 372395.74, 
3352774.38; 372419.05, 3352791.15; 372443.37, 3352806.42; 372468.60, 
3352820.13; 372494.64, 3352832.23; 372521.39, 3352842.68; 372548.75, 
3352851.42; 372576.60, 3352858.42; 372604.83, 3352863.67; 372633.34, 
3352867.13; 372662.00, 3352868.79; 372690.72, 3352868.66; 372719.37, 
3352866.71; 372747.84, 3352862.98; 372776.02, 3352857.46; 372803.80, 
3352850.18; 372831.07, 3352841.18; 372857.72, 3352830.48; 372883.64, 
3352818.12; 372908.74, 3352804.17; 372932.91, 3352788.66; 372956.06, 
3352771.67; 372978.10, 3352753.26; 372998.94, 3352733.50; 373018.49, 
3352712.47; 373036.69, 3352690.26; 373053.46, 3352666.95; 373068.73, 
3352642.63; 373082.44, 3352617.40; 373094.54, 3352591.35; 373104.98, 
3352564.60; 373113.72, 3352537.25; 373120.73, 3352509.40; 373125.97, 
3352481.17; 373129.43, 3352452.66; 373131.10, 3352423.99; 373130.96, 
3352395.28; 373129.02, 3352366.63; 373125.28, 3352338.15; 373119.76, 
3352309.97; 373112.49, 3352282.19; 373103.48, 3352254.92; 373092.78, 
3352228.28; 373080.43, 3352202.35; 373066.47, 3352177.26; 373050.97, 
3352153.08; 373033.98, 3352129.93; 373015.57, 3352107.90; 372995.81, 
3352087.06; 372974.78, 3352067.50; 372952.56, 3352049.31; 372929.25, 
3352032.54; 372904.93, 3352017.27; 372879.70, 3352003.56; 372853.66, 
3351991.46; 372826.91, 3351981.01; 372799.55, 3351972.27; 372771.70, 
3351965.27; 372743.47, 3351960.02; 372714.96, 3351956.56; 372686.30, 
3351954.90.
    (B) Note: Map of Unit FFS-4 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6755]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.003

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 6756]]

    (7) Frosted flatwood salamander--Berkeley, Charleston, and Jasper 
Counties, South Carolina.
    (i) Unit FFS-5, Subunit A--Jasper County, South Carolina. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Limehouse, South Carolina.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 17N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 497847.74, 3566350.32; 498446.09, 3566295.60; 498439.16, 
3566219.48; 498471.15, 3566178.02; 498514.08, 3566169.34; 498465.77, 
3566061.18; 498347.55, 3566000.50; 498335.98, 3566046.55; 498253.70, 
3566211.29; 498242.87, 3566287.84; 498145.31, 3566241.91; 498093.47, 
3566197.40; 497998.76, 3566059.86; 497934.00, 3565901.25; 497898.67, 
3565909.74; 497750.14, 3565959.14; 497684.01, 3565953.12; 497606.99, 
3565916.86; 497442.74, 3566050.55; 497406.11, 3566214.18; 497415.01, 
3566475.87; 497493.26, 3566667.21; 497540.65, 3566737.25; 497620.82, 
3566798.86; 497732.91, 3566816.47; 497862.02, 3566803.14; 497974.49, 
3566781.53; 497979.42, 3566780.58; 497992.64, 3566773.81; 497990.36, 
3566773.41; 497991.28, 3566768.03; 497987.84, 3566757.91; 497989.91, 
3566748.69; 497989.47, 3566747.94; 497988.60, 3566711.90; 497989.72, 
3566675.82; 498042.65, 3566632.46; 498093.51, 3566608.11; 498098.16, 
3566599.05; 498150.81, 3566572.33; 498174.50, 3566503.10; 498224.43, 
3566468.83; 498297.24, 3566436.54; 498367.33, 3566396.68; 498406.68, 
3566344.87; 498446.09, 3566295.60.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-5, Subunit A is provided at 
paragraph (7)(ii)(B) of this entry.
    (ii) Unit FFS-5, Subunit B--Jasper County, South Carolina. From 
USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Hardeeville, South Carolina.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 17N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 489561.94, 3573503.59; 489722.85, 3573967.97; 489813.22, 
3573903.16; 489904.81, 3573840.10; 489926.27, 3573824.52; 489946.02, 
3573806.80; 489963.82, 3573787.14; 489979.50, 3573765.74; 489992.88, 
3573742.83; 490003.82, 3573718.67; 490012.20, 3573693.50; 490017.94, 
3573667.60; 490016.20, 3573652.66; 490013.19, 3573637.92; 490015.98, 
3573632.12; 490025.87, 3573604.58; 490032.87, 3573576.16; 490036.91, 
3573547.18; 490037.03, 3573543.60; 490041.81, 3573520.55; 490043.92, 
3573497.11; 490043.41, 3573474.57; 490040.43, 3573452.23; 490035.01, 
3573430.36; 490027.22, 3573409.21; 490026.77, 3573385.43; 490023.98, 
3573361.81; 490018.89, 3573338.58; 490011.54, 3573315.96; 490002.00, 
3573294.17; 489990.37, 3573273.42; 489980.99, 3573259.55; 489970.67, 
3573246.37; 489959.67, 3573227.66; 489937.65, 3573195.84; 489913.35, 
3573165.71; 489886.91, 3573137.45; 489858.47, 3573111.20; 489828.18, 
3573087.11; 489796.21, 3573065.31; 489762.72, 3573045.91; 489727.90, 
3573029.02; 489644.36, 3573024.70; 489560.73, 3573022.61; 489477.08, 
3573022.74; 489393.46, 3573025.10; 489359.85, 3573040.41; 489327.69, 
3573058.58; 489297.23, 3573079.47; 489268.70, 3573102.92; 489242.31, 
3573128.77; 489218.27, 3573156.80; 489196.75, 3573186.82; 489177.92, 
3573218.59; 489161.92, 3573251.88; 489148.87, 3573286.44; 489138.87, 
3573321.99; 489085.29, 3573601.84; 489092.79, 3573641.38; 489103.20, 
3573680.27; 489116.45, 3573718.27; 489132.48, 3573755.19; 489151.20, 
3573790.83; 489172.50, 3573824.98; 489196.26, 3573857.47; 489214.53, 
3573880.49; 489235.17, 3573901.42; 489257.94, 3573920.01; 489282.57, 
3573936.04; 489308.78, 3573949.34; 489336.26, 3573959.75; 489364.71, 
3573967.15; 489393.78, 3573971.44; 489423.15, 3573972.59; 489452.47, 
3573970.58; 489453.58, 3573970.39; 489507.35, 3573975.17; 489561.29, 
3573977.32; 489615.28, 3573976.84; 489669.17, 3573973.72; 489722.85, 
3573967.97.
    (B) Note: Map of Unit FFS-5 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6757]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.004

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 6758]]

    (iii) Unit FFS-6--Berkeley County, South Carolina. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Cainhoy, South Carolina.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 17N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 611278.81, 3648848.98; 613513.07, 3649951.18; 613527.98, 
3649895.75; 613535.82, 3649838.89; 613536.47, 3649781.49; 613529.62, 
3649718.85; 613516.29, 3649668.71; 613495.76, 3649615.10; 613468.68, 
3649564.49; 613435.47, 3649517.67; 613416.73, 3649495.91; 613396.66, 
3649475.38; 613352.85, 3649438.29; 613304.74, 3649406.98; 613265.68, 
3649387.26; 613198.69, 3649363.59; 613142.44, 3649352.20; 613087.44, 
3649348.04; 613094.83, 3649293.89; 613095.48, 3649236.49; 613088.93, 
3649179.46; 613075.29, 3649123.71; 613054.77, 3649070.10; 613042.02, 
3649044.36; 613027.69, 3649019.49; 612994.47, 3648972.67; 612955.66, 
3648930.38; 612911.85, 3648893.29; 612888.28, 3648876.88; 612863.74, 
3648861.98; 612812.08, 3648836.95; 609500.97, 3647503.91; 609474.07, 
3647493.88; 609446.58, 3647485.56; 609418.63, 3647478.99; 609390.32, 
3647474.18; 609361.76, 3647471.16; 609333.08, 3647469.94; 609304.37, 
3647470.53; 609275.75, 3647472.91; 609247.34, 3647477.09; 609219.25, 
3647483.04; 609191.59, 3647490.74; 609164.46, 3647500.17; 609137.99, 
3647511.28; 609112.26, 3647524.03; 609087.38, 3647538.37; 609063.45, 
3647554.25; 609040.57, 3647571.59; 609018.82, 3647590.34; 608998.29, 
3647610.42; 608979.07, 3647631.75; 608961.22, 3647654.24; 608944.81, 
3647677.81; 608929.92, 3647702.36; 608916.60, 3647727.80; 608904.91, 
3647754.02; 608894.88, 3647780.93; 608886.56, 3647808.42; 608879.99, 
3647836.37; 608875.18, 3647864.68; 608872.16, 3647893.23; 608870.94, 
3647921.92; 608871.52, 3647950.63; 608873.91, 3647979.25; 608878.08, 
3648007.66; 608884.04, 3648035.75; 608891.74, 3648063.41; 608901.17, 
3648090.53; 608912.28, 3648117.01; 608925.03, 3648142.74; 608939.37, 
3648167.62; 608955.25, 3648191.54; 608972.59, 3648214.43; 608991.34, 
3648236.18; 609011.42, 3648256.70; 609032.74, 3648275.93; 609055.24, 
3648293.78; 609078.81, 3648310.18; 609103.36, 3648325.08; 612197.25, 
3649979.02; 612248.91, 3650004.05; 612275.81, 3650014.08; 612331.23, 
3650028.99; 612359.55, 3650033.80; 612416.80, 3650038.06; 612474.12, 
3650035.11; 612502.53, 3650030.94; 612558.29, 3650017.30; 612611.90, 
3649996.77; 612655.36, 3649973.81; 612691.29, 3650045.52; 612724.50, 
3650092.34; 612743.24, 3650114.09; 612784.64, 3650153.86; 612830.69, 
3650188.12; 612855.24, 3650203.02; 612906.90, 3650228.05; 612961.29, 
3650246.41; 613025.74, 3650257.06; 613074.79, 3650262.06; 613103.50, 
3650261.49; 613160.52, 3650254.94; 613216.28, 3650241.30; 613269.89, 
3650220.78; 613295.63, 3650208.03; 613320.51, 3650193.70; 613367.33, 
3650160.49; 613409.62, 3650121.67; 613428.85, 3650100.35; 613463.11, 
3650054.30; 613491.34, 3650004.31; 613513.07, 3649951.18.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit FFS-6 is provided at paragraph 
(7)(iv)(B) of this entry.
    (iv) Unit FFS-7--Charleston County, South Carolina. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map, Santee, South Carolina.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 17N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 648576.17, 3668543.24; 648579.86, 3668086.10; 648551.15, 
3668086.77; 648522.54, 3668089.24; 648494.14, 3668093.50; 648466.06, 
3668099.54; 648438.42, 3668107.33; 648411.32, 3668116.84; 648384.87, 
3668128.03; 648359.18, 3668140.86; 648334.34, 3668155.28; 648310.46, 
3668171.23; 648287.62, 3668188.65; 648265.93, 3668207.47; 648245.46, 
3668227.61; 648226.29, 3668249.00; 648208.50, 3668271.55; 648192.17, 
3668295.17; 648177.35, 3668319.77; 648164.11, 3668345.25; 648152.49, 
3668371.52; 648142.54, 3668398.46; 648134.31, 3668425.97; 648127.82, 
3668453.95; 648123.09, 3668482.28; 648120.16, 3668510.84; 648119.03, 
3668539.54; 648119.70, 3668568.25; 648122.17, 3668596.86; 648126.43, 
3668625.26; 648132.47, 3668653.34; 648140.26, 3668680.98; 648149.77, 
3668708.08; 648160.96, 3668734.53; 648173.79, 3668760.22; 648188.21, 
3668785.06; 648204.16, 3668808.94; 648221.58, 3668831.78; 648240.40, 
3668853.47; 648260.54, 3668873.94; 648281.93, 3668893.11; 648304.48, 
3668910.89; 648328.10, 3668927.23; 648352.70, 3668942.05; 648378.18, 
3668955.29; 648404.45, 3668966.91; 648431.39, 3668976.86; 648458.90, 
3668985.09; 648486.88, 3668991.58; 648515.21, 3668996.30; 648543.77, 
3668999.24; 648572.47, 3669000.37; 648601.18, 3668999.70; 648629.80, 
3668997.23; 648658.20, 3668992.97; 648686.27, 3668986.93; 648713.92, 
3668979.14; 648741.02, 3668969.63; 648767.46, 3668958.44; 648793.16, 
3668945.61; 648818.00, 3668931.19; 648841.88, 3668915.24; 648864.71, 
3668897.82; 648886.41, 3668879.00; 648906.88, 3668858.86; 648926.04, 
3668837.47; 648943.83, 3668814.92; 648960.16, 3668791.30; 648974.98, 
3668766.70; 648988.23, 3668741.22; 648999.85, 3668714.96; 649009.79, 
3668688.01; 649018.03, 3668660.50; 649024.52, 3668632.53; 649029.24, 
3668604.20; 649032.17, 3668575.63; 649033.31, 3668546.93; 649032.64, 
3668518.22; 649030.17, 3668489.61; 649025.90, 3668461.21; 649019.86, 
3668433.13; 649012.08, 3668405.49; 649002.57, 3668378.39; 648991.37, 
3668351.94; 648978.54, 3668326.25; 648964.12, 3668301.41; 648948.17, 
3668277.53; 648930.76, 3668254.69; 648911.94, 3668233.00; 648891.79, 
3668212.53; 648870.41, 3668193.36; 648847.86, 3668175.58; 648824.23, 
3668159.24; 648799.63, 3668144.42; 648774.15, 3668131.18; 648747.89, 
3668119.56; 648720.94, 3668109.62; 648693.43, 3668101.38; 648665.46, 
3668094.89; 648637.13, 3668090.17; 648608.56, 3668087.23; 648579.86, 
3668086.10.
    (B) Note: Map of Units FFS-6 and FFS-7 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6759]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.005

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 6760]]

    Reticulated Flatwoods Salamander (Ambystoma bishopi)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Calhoun, Holmes, 
Jackson, Santa Rosa, Walton, and Washington Counties in Florida; and 
Baker and Miller Counties in Georgia on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the 
reticulated flatwoods salamander are the habitat components that 
provide:
    (i) Breeding habitat. Small (generally less than 1 to 10 ac (less 
than 0.4 to 4.0 ha)), acidic, depressional standing bodies of 
freshwater (wetlands) that:
    (A) Are seasonally flooded by rainfall in late fall or early winter 
and dry in late spring or early summer;
    (B) Are geographically isolated from other water bodies;
    (C) Occur within pine flatwoods-savanna communities;
    (D) Are dominated by grasses and grass-like species in the ground 
layer and overstories of pond-cypress, blackgum, and slash pine;
    (E) Have a relatively open canopy, necessary to maintain the 
herbaceous component that serves as cover for flatwoods salamander 
larvae and their aquatic invertebrate prey; and
    (F) Typically have a burrowing crayfish fauna, but, due to periodic 
drying, the breeding ponds typically lack large, predatory fish (for 
example, Lepomis (sunfish), Micropterus (bass), Amia calva (bowfin)).
    (ii) Non-breeding habitat. Upland pine flatwoods-savanna habitat 
that is open, mesic woodland maintained by frequent fires and that:
    (A) Is within 1,500 ft (457 m) of adjacent and accessible breeding 
ponds;
    (B) Contains crayfish burrows or other underground habitat that the 
flatwoods salamander depends upon for food, shelter, and protection 
from the elements and predation;
    (C) Has an organic hardpan in the soil profile, which inhibits 
subsurface water penetration and typically results in moist soils with 
water often at or near the surface under normal conditions; and
    (D) Often has wiregrasses as the dominant grasses in the abundant 
herbaceous ground cover, which supports the rich herbivorous 
invertebrates that serve as a food source for the reticulated flatwoods 
salamander.
    (iii) Dispersal habitat. Upland habitat areas between nonbreeding 
and breeding habitat that allows for salamander movement between such 
sites and that is characterized by:
    (A) A mix of vegetation types representing a transition between 
wetland and upland vegetation (ecotone);
    (B) An open canopy and abundant native herbaceous species;
    (C) Moist soils as described in paragraph (2)(ii); and
    (D) Subsurface structure, such as deep litter cover or burrows that 
provide shelter for salamanders during seasonal movements.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the 
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on 
the effective date of this rule.
    (4) Critical habitat map units. Data layers defining map units were 
created on a base of USGS 7.5' quadrangles, and critical habitat units 
were then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
    (5) Note: Index map of critical habitat for the reticulated 
flatwoods salamander follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6761]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.006

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 6762]]

    (6) Reticulated flatwood salamander--Calhoun, Holmes, Jackson, 
Santa Rosa, Walton and Washington Counties, Florida.
    (i) Unit RFS-1--Santa Rosa County, Florida. From USGS 1:24,000 
scale quadrangle map Garcon Point, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates, (E, N): 492983.94, 3372029.94; 
493099.21, 3373387.45; 493154.87, 3373453.03; 493198.40, 3373490.44; 
493271.61, 3373535.60; 493351.98, 3373566.25; 493436.67, 3373581.30; 
493522.69, 3373580.20; 493551.12, 3373576.25; 493606.97, 3373563.02; 
493686.54, 3373530.34; 493735.56, 3373500.50; 493801.14, 3373444.83; 
493838.55, 3373401.30; 493870.20, 3373353.43; 493905.84, 3373275.14; 
493921.15, 3373219.82; 493930.85, 3373134.35; 493928.32, 3373077.01; 
493918.62, 3373020.45; 493901.91, 3372965.54; 492974.90, 3370886.40; 
492965.68, 3370859.21; 492954.77, 3370832.65; 492942.22, 3370806.83; 
492928.07, 3370781.84; 492912.38, 3370757.80; 492895.22, 3370734.79; 
492876.64, 3370712.90; 492856.72, 3370692.22; 492835.54, 3370672.83; 
492813.19, 3370654.81; 492789.75, 3370638.23; 492765.32, 3370623.16; 
492739.98, 3370609.64; 492713.85, 3370597.75; 492687.03, 3370587.52; 
492659.61, 3370578.99; 492631.71, 3370572.21; 492603.45, 3370567.18; 
492574.92, 3370563.95; 492546.24, 3370562.51; 492517.54, 3370562.87; 
492488.91, 3370565.04; 492460.47, 3370568.99; 492432.34, 3370574.73; 
492404.62, 3370582.22; 492377.43, 3370591.44; 492350.87, 3370602.35; 
492320.06, 3370618.11; 492291.54, 3370614.88; 492262.86, 3370613.44; 
492234.15, 3370613.80; 492205.52, 3370615.97; 492177.09, 3370619.93; 
492148.96, 3370625.66; 492121.24, 3370633.16; 492094.05, 3370642.37; 
492067.49, 3370653.28; 492041.67, 3370665.83; 492016.69, 3370679.98; 
491992.64, 3370695.67; 491969.63, 3370712.84; 491947.74, 3370731.42; 
491927.07, 3370751.34; 491907.68, 3370772.52; 491889.66, 3370794.87; 
491873.08, 3370818.31; 491858.01, 3370842.75; 491850.37, 3370857.07; 
491865.61, 3370901.72; 491918.43, 3370965.16; 491965.55, 3371021.75; 
492011.53, 3371083.74; 492053.38, 3371140.16; 492103.93, 3371212.08; 
492141.72, 3371264.53; 492176.37, 3371309.64; 492207.14, 3371351.35; 
492243.74, 3371397.83; 492283.27, 3371453.23; 492331.51, 3371520.83; 
493069.37, 3373338.43; 493099.21, 3373387.45.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-1 is provided at paragraph 
(6)(v)(B) of this entry.
    (ii) Unit RFS-2, Subunit A--Santa Rosa County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Harold, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, North American 
Datum of 1983 (NAD83) coordinates, (E, N): 501542.20, 3392876.13; 
501578.50, 3392420.55; 501549.82, 3392419.17; 501521.11, 3392419.59; 
501492.49, 3392421.82; 501464.06, 3392425.84; 501435.94, 392431.63; 
501408.24, 3392439.18; 501381.07, 3392448.45; 501354.53, 3392459.42; 
501328.74, 3392472.02; 501303.78, 3392486.22; 501279.77, 3392501.96; 
501256.80, 392519.18; 501234.95, 3392537.80; 501214.31, 3392557.76; 
501194.97, 3392578.98; 501176.99, 3392601.37; 501160.46, 3392624.84; 
501145.44, 3392649.31; 501131.98, 392674.67; 501120.14, 3392700.83; 
501109.96, 3392727.67; 501101.49, 3392755.11; 501094.76, 3392783.02; 
501089.80, 3392811.30; 501086.62, 3392839.83; 501085.24, 392868.51; 
501085.25, 3392868.93; 501085.66, 3392897.21; 501086.27, 3392904.98; 
501087.89, 3392925.84; 501091.91, 3392954.27; 501097.70, 3392982.39; 
501105.25, 393010.09; 501114.52, 3393037.26; 501125.49, 3393063.80; 
501138.09, 3393089.59; 501152.29, 3393114.54; 501168.03, 3393138.56; 
501185.25, 3393161.53; 501203.87, 393183.38; 501223.83, 3393204.02; 
501245.05, 3393223.36; 501267.44, 3393241.33; 501290.91, 3393257.87; 
501315.38, 3393272.89; 501340.74, 3393286.35; 501366.90, 393298.19; 
501393.74, 3393308.36; 501421.18, 3393316.83; 501449.09, 3393323.56; 
501477.37, 3393328.53; 501505.90, 3393331.70; 501534.58, 3393333.08; 
501563.29, 393332.66; 501584.95, 3393330.98; 501591.91, 3393330.44; 
501613.98, 3393327.32; 501620.34, 3393326.42; 501648.46, 3393320.62; 
501676.16, 3393313.07; 501703.33, 393303.80; 501729.87, 3393292.84; 
501755.66, 3393280.23; 501780.61, 3393266.03; 501804.63, 3393250.29; 
501827.60, 3393233.08; 501849.45, 3393214.45; 501870.09, 393194.49; 
501889.43, 3393173.27; 501907.41, 3393150.89; 501923.94, 3393127.41; 
501938.96, 3393102.95; 501952.42, 3393077.59; 501964.26, 3393051.43; 
501974.44, 393024.58; 501982.91, 3392997.15; 501989.64, 3392969.24; 
501994.60, 3392940.96; 501997.78, 3392912.43; 501999.16, 3392883.75; 
501998.73, 3392855.04; 501996.51, 392826.42; 501992.49, 3392797.99; 
501986.70, 3392769.87; 501979.15, 3392742.17; 501969.87, 3392715.00; 
501958.91, 3392688.46; 501946.31, 3392662.66; 501932.11, 392637.71; 
501916.37, 3392613.70; 501899.15, 3392590.72; 501880.52, 3392568.87; 
501860.56, 3392548.24; 501839.35, 3392528.89; 501816.96, 3392510.92; 
501793.48, 392494.39; 501769.02, 3392479.36; 501743.66, 3392465.90; 
501717.50, 3392454.06; 501690.66, 3392443.89; 501663.22, 3392435.42; 
501635.31, 3392428.69; 501607.03, 3392423.73; 501578.50, 3392420.55.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-2, Subunit A is provided at 
paragraph (6)(v)(B) of this entry.
    (iii) Unit RFS-2, Subunit B--Santa Rosa County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Floridale, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 518978.93, 3390847.46; 519015.23, 3390391.88; 518986.55, 
3390390.50; 518957.84, 3390390.92; 518929.22, 3390393.14; 518900.79, 
3390397.16; 518872.67, 390402.96; 518844.97, 3390410.51; 518817.80, 
3390419.78; 518791.26, 3390430.74; 518765.46, 3390443.35; 518740.51, 
3390457.55; 518716.50, 3390473.29; 518693.52, 3390490.50; 518671.67, 
3390509.13; 518651.04, 3390529.09; 518631.69, 3390550.31; 518613.72, 
3390572.70; 518597.19, 3390596.17; 518582.16, 3390620.64; 518568.70, 
3390646.00; 518556.86, 3390672.15; 518546.69, 3390699.00; 518538.22, 
3390726.43; 518531.49, 3390754.34; 518526.53, 3390782.62; 518523.35, 
3390811.16; 518521.97, 3390839.83; 518522.39, 3390868.54; 518524.62, 
3390897.17; 518528.63, 3390925.59; 518534.43, 3390953.71; 518541.98, 
3390981.41; 518551.25, 3391008.59; 518562.21, 3391035.12; 518574.82, 
3391060.92; 518589.02, 3391085.87; 518604.76, 3391109.88; 518621.98, 
3391132.86; 518640.60, 3391154.71; 518660.56, 3391175.35; 518681.78, 
3391194.69; 518704.17, 3391212.66; 518727.64, 3391229.19; 518752.11, 
3391244.22; 518777.47, 3391257.68; 518803.62, 3391269.52; 518830.47, 
3391279.69; 518857.91, 3391288.16; 518885.82, 3391294.89; 518914.10, 
3391299.86; 518942.63, 3391303.03; 518971.31, 3391304.41; 519000.02, 
3391303.99; 519028.64, 3391301.77; 519057.07, 3391297.75; 519085.19, 
3391291.95; 519112.89, 3391284.40; 519140.06, 3391275.13; 519166.60, 
3391264.17; 519192.39, 3391251.56; 519217.35, 3391237.36; 519241.36, 
3391221.62; 519264.33, 3391204.41; 519286.18, 3391185.78; 519306.82, 
3391165.82; 519326.16, 3391144.60; 519344.14, 3391122.21; 519360.67, 
3391098.74; 519375.69, 3391074.28; 519389.16, 3391048.92; 519401.00, 
3391022.77; 519410.33, 3390998.13; 519411.17, 3390995.92; 519419.64, 
3390968.48;

[[Page 6763]]

519426.37, 3390940.57; 519431.34, 3390912.29; 519434.51, 3390883.76; 
519435.89, 3390855.08; 519435.47, 3390826.37; 519433.25, 3390797.7493; 
519429.2274, 3390769.3210; 519423.4325, 3390741.2012; 519415.8831, 
3390713.50; 519406.61, 3390686.33; 519395.65, 3390659.79; 519383.04, 
3390634.00; 519368.84, 3390609.04; 519353.10, 3390585.03; 519335.89, 
3390562.06; 519317.26, 3390540.21; 519297.30, 3390519.57; 519276.08, 
3390500.23; 519253.69, 3390482.25; 519230.22, 3390465.72; 519205.75, 
3390450.70; 519180.39, 3390437.24; 519154.24, 3390425.40; 519127.39, 
3390415.22; 519099.96, 3390406.75; 519072.05, 3390400.02; 519043.77, 
3390395.06; 519025.17, 3390392.99; 519015.23, 3390391.88.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-2, Subunit B is provided at 
paragraph (6)(v)(B) of this entry.
    (iv) Unit RFS-3, Subunit A--Santa Rosa County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Holley, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 503177.78, 3363967.21; 503665.03, 3364056.93; 503673.05, 
3364029.36; 503679.32, 3364001.35; 503683.82, 3363972.99; 503686.53, 
3363944.41; 503687.44, 3363915.71; 503694.98, 3363896.36; 503703.23, 
3363884.01; 503713.36, 3363875.67; 503720.87, 3363866.60; 503726.39, 
3363857.48; 503733.34, 3363843.78; 503741.25, 3363818.20; 503752.72, 
3363782.15; 503757.95, 3363757.83; 503766.30, 3363741.51; 503653.07, 
3363742.06; 503644.01, 3363721.11; 503630.98, 3363695.52; 503615.44, 
3363669.75; 503614.55, 3363724.18; 503603.43, 3363777.35; 503601.27, 
3363799.83; 503594.64, 3363834.69; 503563.00, 3363831.09; 503563.97, 
3363824.67; 503558.81, 3363820.93; 503559.46, 3363811.37; 503555.68, 
3363800.73; 503543.49, 3363787.96; 503527.75, 3363771.89; 503514.02, 
3363772.76; 503464.40, 3363773.57; 503448.85, 3363749.85; 503448.44, 
3363558.27; 503320.62, 3363559.79; 503273.43, 3363560.71; 503273.49, 
3363572.75; 503279.14, 3363573.95; 503279.03, 3363592.72; 503284.42, 
3363598.55; 503277.70, 3363622.86; 503272.12, 3363658.96; 503257.00, 
3363659.53; 503220.26, 3363657.70; 503211.46, 3363656.94; 503211.34, 
3363632.86; 503198.99, 3363600.69; 503189.65, 3363605.42; 503175.37, 
3363661.31; 503174.55, 3363690.00; 503175.30, 3363735.30; 503170.12, 
3363757.64; 503161.91, 3363768.67; 503127.37, 3363773.12; 503100.70, 
3363791.93; 503033.44, 3363790.29; 502978.97, 3363827.84; 502954.55, 
3363827.72; 502938.01, 3363827.31; 502928.95, 3363818.51; 502929.56, 
3363685.06; 502929.74, 3363569.45; 502821.80, 3363570.13; 502821.27, 
3363591.92; 502814.36, 3363603.64; 502789.75, 3363608.33; 502751.22, 
3363613.34; 502704.61, 3363624.01; 502670.48, 3363639.13; 502640.35, 
3363788.37; 502630.38, 3363844.28; 502624.76, 3363884.45; 502620.15, 
3363937.85; 502612.79, 3363995.15; 502605.87, 3364010.90; 502632.10, 
3364030.43; 502667.63, 3364049.11; 502682.24, 3364047.48; 502713.23, 
3364052.86; 502771.52, 3364051.63; 502794.68, 3364052.20; 502805.45, 
3364083.69; 502816.85, 3364110.04; 502829.87, 3364135.63; 502844.48, 
3364160.34; 502860.61, 3364184.09; 502878.20, 3364206.79; 502897.18, 
3364228.33; 502917.48, 3364248.63; 502939.01, 3364267.63; 502961.69, 
3364285.23; 502985.43, 3364301.38; 503010.14, 3364316.00; 503035.71, 
3364329.04; 503062.06, 3364340.45; 503089.07, 3364350.18; 503116.64, 
3364358.20; 503144.65, 3364364.47; 503173.01, 3364368.97; 503201.59, 
3364371.69; 503230.29, 3364372.60; 503258.99, 3364371.70; 503287.57, 
3364369.01; 503315.93, 3364364.53; 503343.95, 3364358.27; 503371.52, 
3364350.27; 503398.54, 3364340.55; 503424.89, 3364329.16; 503450.47, 
3364316.13; 503475.19, 3364301.52; 503498.94, 3364285.39; 503521.63, 
3364267.80; 503543.18, 3364248.82; 503563.48, 3364228.53; 503582.48, 
3364207.00; 503600.08, 3364184.32; 503616.23, 3364160.57; 503630.85, 
3364135.87; 503643.89, 3364110.29; 503655.30, 3364083.94; 503665.03, 
3364056.93.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-3, Subunit A is provided at 
paragraph (6)(v)(B) of this entry.
    (v) Unit RFS-3, Subunit B--Santa Rosa County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Holley, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N NAD83 coordinates, 
(E, N): 507814.78, 3364090.74; 508038.93, 3364260.63; 508159.63, 
3364258.28; 508158.08, 3364132.67; 508156.37, 3364018.27; 508155.42, 
3363957.25; 508106.06, 3363958.06; 508068.35, 3363958.68; 508035.07, 
3363959.24; 507887.21, 3363961.45; 507885.38, 3363855.42; 507685.15, 
3363855.35; 507684.90, 3363837.37; 507612.21, 3363836.12; 507612.77, 
3363907.73; 507612.90, 3363927.61; 507638.84, 3363928.05; 507638.99, 
3363940.21; 507583.59, 3364018.73; 507491.86, 3364016.60; 507493.27, 
3364096.55; 507471.91, 3364096.05; 507455.12, 3364095.65; 507457.47, 
3364243.92; 507529.64, 3364243.19; 507566.34, 3364270.07; 507830.20, 
3364271.25; 507890.35, 3364271.37; 507890.09, 3364262.80; 507967.94, 
3364261.67; 508038.93, 3364260.63.
    (B) Note: Map of Units RFS-1, RFS-2, and RFS-3 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6764]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.007

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 6765]]

    (vi) Unit RFS-6, Subunit A--Walton County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Bruce, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 601647.75, 3373576.77; 601493.33, 3374109.03; 601522.04, 
3374108.60; 601550.67, 3374106.38; 601579.10, 3374102.36; 601607.23, 
3374096.56; 601634.93, 3374089.01; 601662.11, 3374079.74; 601688.65, 
3374068.77; 601714.44, 3374056.17; 601739.40, 3374041.96; 601763.41, 
3374026.22; 601786.39, 3374009.00; 601808.25, 3373990.37; 601828.89, 
3373970.41; 601848.23, 3373949.19; 601866.21, 3373926.80; 601882.74, 
3373903.32; 601897.76, 3373878.85; 601911.23, 3373853.49; 601923.07, 
3373827.33; 601933.24, 3373800.48; 601941.71, 3373773.04; 601948.44, 
3373745.13; 601953.40, 3373716.84; 601956.58, 3373688.31; 601957.96, 
3373659.62; 601957.54, 3373630.91; 601955.31, 3373602.29; 601951.29, 
3373573.85; 601945.50, 3373545.73; 601937.95, 3373518.03; 601932.81, 
3373498.30; 602077.97, 3373412.75; 602148.71, 3373370.38; 602189.04, 
3373346.29; 602226.02, 3373324.08; 602242.81, 3373314.59; 602251.57, 
3373308.87; 602249.73, 3373302.87; 602248.52, 3373298.22; 602244.07, 
3373290.84; 602232.30, 3373285.25; 602226.49, 3373279.16; 602219.36, 
3373273.03; 602212.40, 3373260.30; 602203.50, 3373245.54; 602189.89, 
3373207.54; 602185.07, 3373188.25; 602182.00, 3373178.92; 602174.92, 
3373170.82; 602167.16, 3373163.35; 602161.52, 3373150.66; 602159.44, 
3373128.14; 602152.20, 3373073.77; 602147.72, 3373041.28; 602068.26, 
3373014.83; 602046.87, 3372996.45; 602018.93, 3372975.27; 601977.95, 
3372972.42; 601920.70, 3372984.20; 601893.12, 3373001.35; 601867.36, 
3373025.15; 601844.26, 3373048.36; 601816.50, 3373072.78; 601799.99, 
3373071.04; 601789.68, 3373059.55; 601764.95, 3373042.41; 601751.13, 
3373012.99; 601725.10, 3372994.49; 601700.34, 3373005.10; 601680.55, 
3373028.40; 601659.92, 3373058.94; 601630.17, 3373083.30; 601595.72, 
3373083.76; 601568.63, 3373081.76; 601562.85, 3373153.48; 601546.32, 
3373152.40; 601512.87, 3373139.67; 601482.57, 3373133.62; 601457.54, 
3373128.37; 601443.06, 3373124.70; 601441.20, 3373198.67; 601422.79, 
3373201.67; 601394.66, 3373207.46; 601366.96, 3373215.01; 601339.78, 
3373224.29; 601313.25, 3373235.25; 601287.45, 3373247.86; 601262.49, 
3373262.06; 601238.48, 3373277.81; 601215.50, 3373295.02; 601193.65, 
3373313.65; 601173.01, 3373333.62; 601153.66, 3373354.84; 601135.69, 
3373377.23; 601119.15, 3373400.70; 601104.13, 3373425.17; 601090.67, 
3373450.54; 601078.83, 3373476.70; 601068.65, 3373503.55; 601060.18, 
3373530.98; 601053.45, 3373558.90; 601048.49, 3373587.18; 601045.31, 
3373615.72; 601043.93, 3373644.40; 601044.35, 3373673.11; 601046.58, 
3373701.74; 601050.60, 3373730.17; 601056.39, 3373758.30; 601063.95, 
3373786.00; 601073.22, 3373813.17; 601084.18, 3373839.71; 601096.79, 
3373865.51; 601111.00, 3373890.47; 601126.74, 3373914.48; 601143.96, 
3373937.46; 601162.58, 3373959.31; 601182.55, 3373979.95; 601203.77, 
3373999.30; 601226.16, 3374017.27; 601249.64, 3374033.81; 601274.11, 
3374048.83; 601299.47, 3374062.29; 601325.63, 3374074.13; 601352.48, 
3374084.31; 601379.92, 3374092.78; 601407.83, 3374099.51; 601436.11, 
3374104.47; 601464.65, 3374107.65; 601493.33, 3374109.03.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-6, Subunit A is provided at 
paragraph (6)(ix)(B) of this entry.
    (vii) Unit RFS-6, Subunit B--Washington County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Bruce, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 607444.16, 3365585.74; 607435.59, 3366042.75; 607464.30, 
3366042.38; 607492.93, 3366040.22; 607521.37, 3366036.26; 607549.51, 
3366030.52; 607577.23, 3366023.03; 607604.42, 3366013.81; 607630.98, 
3366002.90; 607656.81, 3365990.35; 607681.79, 3365976.20; 607705.84, 
3365960.50; 607728.86, 3365943.33; 607750.75, 3365924.75; 607771.43, 
3365904.83; 607790.82, 3365883.65; 607808.84, 3365861.30; 607825.42, 
3365837.85; 607840.50, 3365813.42; 607854.02, 3365788.08; 607865.91, 
3365761.94; 607876.14, 3365735.11; 607884.67, 3365707.70; 607891.46, 
3365679.79; 607896.48, 3365651.52; 607899.72, 3365622.99; 607901.16, 
3365594.31; 607900.79, 3365565.60; 607898.63, 3365536.97; 607894.67, 
3365508.53; 607888.93, 3365480.39; 607881.44, 3365452.67; 607872.22, 
3365425.48; 607861.31, 3365398.91; 607848.76, 3365373.09; 607834.61, 
3365348.10; 607818.91, 3365324.06; 607801.74, 3365301.04; 607783.16, 
3365279.15; 607763.24, 3365258.47; 607742.06, 3365239.08; 607719.71, 
3365221.06; 607696.26, 3365204.48; 607671.83, 3365189.40; 607646.49, 
3365175.88; 607620.36, 3365163.99; 607593.53, 3365153.76; 607566.11, 
3365145.23; 607538.21, 3365138.44; 607509.93, 3365133.42; 607481.40, 
3365130.18; 607452.72, 3365128.74; 607424.01, 3365129.11; 607395.38, 
3365131.27; 607366.94, 3365135.23; 607338.80, 3365140.97; 607311.08, 
3365148.46; 607283.89, 3365157.68; 607257.33, 3365168.59; 607231.50, 
3365181.14; 607206.52, 3365195.29; 607182.47, 3365210.99; 607159.45, 
3365228.16; 607137.56, 3365246.74; 607116.88, 3365266.66; 607097.49, 
3365287.84; 607079.47, 3365310.19; 607062.89, 3365333.64; 607047.81, 
3365358.07; 607034.30, 3365383.41; 607022.40, 3365409.54; 607012.17, 
3365436.37; 607003.64, 3365463.79; 606996.85, 3365491.69; 606991.83, 
3365519.97; 606988.59, 3365548.50; 606987.15, 3365577.18; 606987.52, 
3365605.89; 606989.68, 3365634.52; 606993.64, 3365662.96; 606999.38, 
3365691.10; 607006.87, 3365718.82; 607016.09, 3365746.01; 607027.00, 
3365772.57; 607039.55, 3365798.40; 607053.70, 3365823.38; 607069.40, 
3365847.43; 607086.57, 3365870.45; 607105.15, 3365892.34; 607125.07, 
3365913.02; 607146.25, 3365932.41; 607168.60, 3365950.43; 607192.05, 
3365967.01; 607216.48, 3365982.09; 607241.82, 3365995.60; 607267.95, 
3366007.50; 607294.78, 3366017.73; 607322.20, 3366026.26; 607350.10, 
3366033.05; 607378.38, 3366038.07; 607406.91, 3366041.31; 607435.59, 
3366042.75.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-6, Subunit B is provided at 
paragraph (6)(ix)(B) of this entry.
    (viii) Unit RFS-7, Subunit A--Holmes County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Bonifay, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 630429.91, 3415116.39; 630422.24, 3415573.43; 630450.95, 
3415573.01; 630479.58, 3415570.79; 630508.01, 3415566.77; 630536.14, 
3415560.98; 630563.84, 3415553.43; 630591.02, 3415544.16; 630617.56, 
3415533.20; 630643.36, 3415520.59; 630668.32, 3415506.39; 630692.34, 
3415490.65; 630715.32, 3415473.44; 630737.18, 3415454.81; 630757.82, 
3415434.85; 630777.17, 3415413.63; 630795.15, 3415391.24; 630811.68, 
3415367.76; 630826.71, 3415343.29; 630840.18, 3415317.93; 630852.02, 
3415291.77; 630862.20, 3415264.92; 630870.67, 3415237.48; 630877.41, 
3415209.57; 630882.38, 3415181.28; 630885.56, 3415152.74; 630886.94, 
3415124.06; 630886.52, 3415095.35; 630884.30, 3415066.72; 630880.28, 
3415038.28; 630874.49, 3415010.16; 630866.94, 3414982.45; 630857.67, 
3414955.27; 630846.71, 3414928.73; 630834.11, 3414902.93; 630819.91, 
3414877.97; 630804.17, 3414853.95; 630786.95, 3414830.97; 630768.32, 
3414809.11; 630748.36, 3414788.47; 630727.15, 3414769.12; 630704.75, 
3414751.14;

[[Page 6766]]

630681.28, 3414734.60; 630656.81, 3414719.57; 630631.45, 3414706.11; 
630605.29, 3414694.26; 630578.44, 3414684.08; 630551.00, 3414675.61; 
630523.09, 3414668.88; 630494.81, 3414663.91; 630466.27, 3414660.73; 
630437.59, 3414659.34; 630408.87, 3414659.76; 630380.24, 3414661.99; 
630351.81, 3414666.00; 630323.69, 3414671.79; 630295.98, 3414679.34; 
630268.80, 3414688.61; 630242.26, 3414699.58; 630216.46, 3414712.18; 
630191.50, 3414726.38; 630167.49, 3414742.12; 630144.51, 3414759.34; 
630122.65, 3414777.97; 630102.01, 3414797.93; 630082.66, 3414819.15; 
630064.68, 3414841.54; 630048.14, 3414865.01; 630033.11, 3414889.48; 
630019.65, 3414914.85; 630007.80, 3414941.01; 629997.63, 3414967.86; 
629989.15, 3414995.29; 629982.42, 3415023.21; 629977.45, 3415051.49; 
629974.27, 3415080.03; 629972.89, 3415108.72; 629973.31, 3415137.43; 
629975.53, 3415166.06; 629979.54, 3415194.49; 629985.34, 3415222.62; 
629992.88, 3415250.32; 630002.16, 3415277.50; 630013.12, 3415304.04; 
630025.72, 3415329.85; 630039.92, 3415354.81; 630055.66, 3415378.82; 
630072.88, 3415401.81; 630091.50, 3415423.66; 630111.46, 3415444.31; 
630132.68, 3415463.65; 630155.07, 3415481.63; 630178.55, 3415498.17; 
630203.02, 3415513.20; 630228.38, 3415526.67; 630254.54, 3415538.51; 
630281.39, 3415548.69; 630308.82, 3415557.16; 630336.74, 3415563.90; 
630365.02, 3415568.87; 630393.56, 3415572.05; 630422.24, 3415573.43.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-7, Subunit A is provided at 
paragraph (6)(ix)(B) of this entry.
    (ix) Unit RFS-7, Subunit B--Washington County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 quadrangle map Millers Ferry, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 618603.41, 3387429.45; 618699.68, 3387966.18; 618708.26, 
3387969.49; 618723.71, 3387970.50; 618726.33, 3387965.00; 618725.78, 
3387937.80; 618728.76, 3387918.09; 618732.40, 3387896.55; 618738.22, 
3387886.81; 618755.97, 3387870.57; 618776.73, 3387857.50; 618803.06, 
3387844.57; 618839.32, 3387830.66; 618872.53, 3387815.43; 618904.43, 
3387802.63; 618918.85, 3387795.58; 618926.43, 3387789.59; 618930.96, 
3387781.67; 618931.79, 3387748.94; 618930.13, 3387716.76; 618932.43, 
3387674.79; 618932.53, 3387646.37; 618934.03, 3387611.79; 618948.87, 
3387588.07; 618962.97, 3387569.26; 618980.28, 3387545.60; 618995.92, 
3387515.09; 619007.01, 3387492.50; 619018.24, 3387464.98; 619025.65, 
3387441.06; 619035.64, 3387413.50; 619042.95, 3387393.91; 619052.14, 
3387373.13; 619059.11, 3387348.17; 619055.09, 3387319.74; 619049.30, 
3387291.61; 619041.75, 3387263.91; 619032.48, 3387236.73; 619021.51, 
3387210.19; 619008.91, 3387184.39; 618994.70, 3387159.43; 618978.96, 
3387135.42; 618961.74, 3387112.44; 618943.12, 3387090.58; 618923.15, 
3387069.94; 618901.93, 3387050.59; 618879.54, 3387032.62; 618856.06, 
3387016.08; 618831.60, 3387001.05; 618806.23, 3386987.59; 618780.07, 
3386975.75; 618753.22, 3386965.57; 618725.78, 3386957.10; 618697.87, 
3386950.37; 618669.59, 3386945.41; 618641.05, 3386942.23; 618612.37, 
3386940.85; 618583.65, 3386941.27; 618555.02, 3386943.49; 618526.59, 
3386947.51; 618498.47, 3386953.31; 618470.76, 3386960.86; 618443.59, 
3386970.13; 618417.05, 3386981.10; 618391.25, 3386993.70; 618366.29, 
3387007.91; 618342.28, 3387023.65; 618319.30, 3387040.87; 618297.44, 
3387059.49; 618276.80, 3387079.46; 618257.46, 3387100.68; 618239.48, 
3387123.07; 618222.95, 3387146.55; 618207.92, 3387171.02; 618194.46, 
3387196.38; 618182.61, 3387222.54; 618172.44, 3387249.39; 618163.97, 
3387276.83; 618157.24, 3387304.75; 618152.27, 3387333.03; 618149.09, 
3387361.57; 618147.71, 3387390.25; 618148.13, 3387418.97; 618150.36, 
3387447.59; 618154.38, 3387476.03; 618160.17, 3387504.15; 618167.72, 
3387531.86; 618177.00, 3387559.03; 618187.96, 3387585.58; 618200.57, 
3387611.37; 618214.77, 3387636.33; 618230.51, 3387660.35; 618247.73, 
3387683.33; 618266.36, 3387705.18; 618286.32, 3387725.82; 618307.54, 
3387745.17; 618329.93, 3387763.15; 618353.41, 3387779.68; 618377.88, 
3387794.71; 618403.24, 3387808.17; 618429.40, 3387820.02; 618456.25, 
3387830.19; 618483.69, 3387838.66; 618511.60, 3387845.39; 618552.33, 
3387867.90; 618598.24, 3387912.94; 618635.11, 3387948.48; 618647.90, 
3387956.84; 618666.90, 3387964.74; 618689.14, 3387966.53; 618699.68, 
3387966.18.
    (B) Note: Map of Units RFS-6 and RFS-7 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6767]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.008

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 6768]]

    (x) Unit RFS-8, Subunit A--Jackson County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 quadrangle map Cottondale West, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 652825.49, 3407068.83; 652825.48, 3407068.83; 653303.68, 
3406605.29; 653038.02, 3406583.61; 653039.18, 3406691.92; 653028.57, 
3406721.18; 653006.55, 3406734.40; 652986.39, 3406751.60; 652981.54, 
3406786.91; 652980.43, 3406830.19; 652979.67, 3406859.70; 652965.63, 
3406869.19; 652941.78, 3406876.45; 652916.11, 3406877.76; 652884.59, 
3406876.95; 652859.18, 3406868.42; 652831.89, 3406855.91; 652800.52, 
3406849.20; 652767.02, 3406848.34; 652747.17, 3406853.74; 652732.87, 
3406873.06; 652724.33, 3406898.44; 652743.83, 3406906.81; 652763.39, 
3406913.22; 652758.74, 3406940.66; 652753.99, 3406972.04; 652760.86, 
3407011.59; 652764.09, 3407039.23; 652761.57, 3407060.82; 652749.49, 
3407070.36; 652725.65, 3407077.62; 652709.68, 3407085.09; 652701.20, 
3407108.49; 652698.57, 3407134.02; 652696.09, 3407153.64; 652674.12, 
3407164.89; 652656.23, 3407170.34; 652642.04, 3407185.72; 652620.14, 
3407175.05; 652594.55, 3407165.80; 652583.46, 3407159.57; 652578.33, 
3407152.82; 652573.28, 3407143.44; 652569.58, 3407132.77; 652565.24, 
3407121.42; 652555.67, 3407107.29; 652545.45, 3407092.48; 652535.85, 
3407079.68; 652526.16, 3407070.17; 652517.58, 3407069.29; 652507.43, 
3407077.62; 652495.88, 3407089.23; 652486.90, 3407103.54; 652483.22, 
3407117.99; 652480.80, 3407135.12; 652478.24, 3407157.53; 652480.37, 
3407177.42; 652480.51, 3407197.92; 652475.78, 3407201.76; 652465.72, 
3407206.79; 652458.25, 3407213.87; 652449.33, 3407226.21; 652438.05, 
3407227.24; 652428.85, 3407224.36; 652417.75, 3407218.12; 652411.37, 
3407208.70; 652407.64, 3407199.35; 652404.20, 3407178.77; 652402.01, 
3407160.86; 652397.94, 3407138.94; 652395.00, 3407124.32; 652386.76, 
3407110.23; 652373.71, 3407102.62; 652360.44, 3407103.60; 652343.53, 
3407117.72; 652333.43, 3407124.07; 652322.15, 3407125.10; 652314.14, 
3407127.54; 652305.95, 3407137.25; 652296.58, 3407140.97; 652287.20, 
3407145.36; 652274.56, 3407147.68; 652268.06, 3407142.89; 652261.53, 
3407139.41; 652255.03, 3407134.62; 652248.60, 3407127.18; 652243.50, 
3407119.78; 652238.44, 3407110.39; 652237.44, 3407097.81; 652241.12, 
3407083.36; 652242.82, 3407068.86; 652245.24, 3407051.73; 652244.24, 
3407039.14; 652236.01, 3407024.39; 652221.05, 3407014.09; 652203.25, 
3407010.99; 652190.56, 3407015.29; 652182.47, 3407021.03; 652175.50, 
3407034.74; 652172.53, 3407047.22; 652173.53, 3407059.81; 652170.75, 
3407065.03; 652164.64, 3407070.82; 652155.26, 3407075.21; 652145.32, 
3407075.61; 652133.44, 3407073.99; 652119.02, 3407068.33; 652106.60, 
3407062.06; 652100.97, 3407049.36; 652097.32, 3407036.70; 652077.38, 
3407039.50; 652052.56, 3407052.08; 652042.52, 3407056.45; 652034.12, 
3407074.09; 652048.98, 3407088.35; 652061.11, 3407105.85; 652085.32, 
3407117.05; 652106.16, 3407130.80; 652105.19, 3407142.68; 652106.02, 
3407161.87; 652112.91, 3407177.25; 652135.31, 3407181.79; 652182.83, 
3407187.64; 652215.86, 3407190.47; 652257.41, 3407196.82; 652295.04, 
3407201.09; 652314.35, 3407205.65; 652308.49, 3407218.63; 652292.89, 
3407233.43; 652266.52, 3407254.57; 652238.70, 3407280.96; 652220.19, 
3407305.61; 652212.44, 3407323.92; 652210.01, 3407341.05; 652209.77, 
3407350.30; 652210.11, 3407362.87; 652213.26, 3407375.54; 652299.80, 
3407383.66; 652374.80, 3407395.52; 652472.45, 3407408.60; 652594.12, 
3407426.43; 652663.66, 3407439.95; 652719.80, 3407445.35; 652756.73, 
3407450.93; 652822.76, 3407457.91; 652861.06, 3407462.20; 652917.52, 
3407467.64; 652905.20, 3407362.30; 652901.54, 3407298.74; 652968.31, 
3407276.65; 653003.40, 3407251.11; 653001.57, 3407219.33; 652994.98, 
3407166.27; 653006.18, 3407142.76; 653022.74, 3407116.74; 653023.96, 
3407069.17; 653009.23, 3407023.84; 653002.04, 3406994.56; 653028.78, 
3406984.67; 653046.56, 3407014.22; 653069.77, 3407038.61; 653101.19, 
3407052.64; 653145.98, 3407061.72; 653188.39, 3407060.16; 653209.09, 
3407079.20; 653227.21, 3407095.54; 653233.05, 3407074.53; 653231.22, 
3407042.75; 653237.12, 3407019.10; 653258.77, 3407001.15; 653290.87, 
3406988.75; 653294.33, 3406957.10; 653292.43, 3406927.97; 653290.39, 
3406904.11; 653290.87, 3406885.61; 653306.88, 3406880.74; 653330.43, 
3406891.92; 653353.91, 3406905.74; 653377.80, 3406903.71; 653389.13, 
3406874.91; 653395.38, 3406838.05; 653396.39, 3406798.41; 653397.07, 
3406771.98; 653400.40, 3406745.62; 653413.97, 3406732.75; 653440.50, 
3406730.79; 653454.01, 3406720.56; 653454.42, 3406704.70; 653438.67, 
3406699.01; 653411.87, 3406711.54; 653393.20, 3406716.35; 653374.68, 
3406715.88; 653358.93, 3406710.18; 653341.08, 3406683.28; 653331.11, 
3406659.23; 653321.06, 3406637.81; 653308.37, 3406616.33; 653303.68, 
3406605.29.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-8, Subunit A is provided at 
paragraph (6)(xiv)(B) of this entry.
    (xi) Unit RFS-8, Subunit B--Jackson County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Oakdale, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 674995.60, 3401690.28; 673875.85, 3402158.93; 674341.17, 
3402164.28; 674675.84, 3402154.41; 674910.48, 3402162.13; 675034.90, 
3402087.99; 675083.93, 3402061.49; 675233.86, 3401974.12; 675401.89, 
3401877.97; 675485.18, 3401832.51; 675531.62, 3401803.30; 675583.62, 
3401764.31; 675781.28, 3401546.61; 675851.43, 3401471.73; 675878.14, 
3401437.38; 675932.68, 3401376.64; 675959.66, 3401349.36; 675970.87, 
3401333.99; 675981.97, 3401314.44; 676115.36, 3401200.87; 676086.59, 
3401161.12; 676052.69, 3401114.62; 676041.90, 3401096.49; 676016.12, 
3401069.38; 675998.03, 3401051.73; 675964.86, 3401028.39; 675934.93, 
3401007.79; 675918.10, 3400992.81; 675908.38, 3400984.62; 675897.49, 
3400970.46; 675889.97, 3400953.73; 675879.31, 3400879.41; 675844.53, 
3400893.06; 675327.40, 3401121.69; 674861.39, 3401328.81; 674684.03, 
3401401.59; 674391.31, 3401530.89; 673876.29, 3401753.54; 673877.85, 
3402081.41; 673875.85, 3402158.93.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-8, Subunit B is provided at 
paragraph (6)(xiv)(B) of this entry.
    (xii) Unit RFS-8, Subunit C--Jackson County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Cypress, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 683829.73, 3393074.70; 684023.32, 3393574.80; 684052.04, 
3393574.38; 684080.68, 3393572.16; 684109.12, 3393568.14; 684137.25, 
3393562.34; 684164.96, 3393554.79; 684192.15, 3393545.52; 684218.69, 
3393534.55; 684244.50, 3393521.94; 684269.46, 3393507.74; 684293.49, 
3393491.99; 684316.47, 3393474.77; 684338.33, 3393456.14; 684358.98, 
3393436.17; 684378.33, 3393414.95; 684396.32, 3393392.55; 684412.86, 
3393369.07; 684427.89, 3393344.60; 684441.36, 3393319.23; 684453.20, 
3393293.06; 684463.38, 3393266.20; 684471.86, 3393238.76; 684478.59, 
3393210.84; 684483.56, 3393182.55; 684486.74, 3393154.00; 684488.12, 
3393125.31; 684487.70, 3393096.59; 684485.48, 3393067.96; 684481.46, 
3393039.52; 684475.66, 3393011.38; 684468.11, 3392983.67; 684458.84, 
3392956.49; 684447.87, 3392929.94; 684435.27, 3392904.13; 684421.06, 
3392879.17;

[[Page 6769]]

684405.32, 3392855.15; 684388.09, 3392832.16; 684369.46, 3392810.30; 
684349.50, 3392789.65; 684328.27, 3392770.30; 684305.87, 3392752.32; 
684282.39, 3392735.78; 684257.92, 3392720.75; 684232.55, 3392707.28; 
684206.38, 3392695.43; 684179.52, 3392685.25; 684152.08, 3392676.78; 
684124.16, 3392670.04; 684095.87, 3392665.08; 684067.32, 3392661.89; 
684038.63, 3392660.51; 684009.91, 3392660.93; 683981.28, 3392663.16; 
683966.02, 3392656.75; 683947.05, 3392647.66; 683923.43, 3392639.12; 
683903.85, 3392628.04; 683886.86, 3392619.00; 683867.12, 3392613.87; 
683843.82, 3392618.55; 683819.20, 3392623.21; 683789.11, 3392634.33; 
683770.46, 3392638.47; 683744.30, 3392651.02; 683720.12, 3392664.28; 
683706.10, 3392668.55; 683685.47, 3392672.64; 683658.43, 3392667.97; 
683632.03, 3392664.65; 683606.95, 3392661.36; 683585.89, 3392656.18; 
683542.11, 3392633.24; 683512.11, 3392615.27; 683479.46, 3392597.24; 
683450.00, 3392583.92; 683423.91, 3392568.70; 683385.42, 3392545.89; 
683371.14, 3392534.94; 683348.35, 3392519.81; 683332.69, 3392510.81; 
683315.62, 3392505.08; 683294.59, 3392498.59; 683272.28, 3392490.74; 
683253.15, 3392487.60; 683203.24, 3392496.89; 683207.64, 3392582.95; 
683209.99, 3392696.72; 683212.45, 3392729.84; 683218.34, 3392783.54; 
683218.66, 3392796.77; 683214.15, 3392817.81; 683194.50, 3392886.06; 
683182.83, 3392927.40; 683174.68, 3392960.91; 683171.34, 3392987.93; 
683171.38, 3393011.73; 683174.93, 3393028.35; 683181.19, 3393042.39; 
683179.64, 3393050.95; 683179.13, 3393070.77; 683177.70, 3393100.48; 
683176.50, 3393146.73; 683179.16, 3393171.92; 683183.14, 3393197.15; 
683188.54, 3393219.10; 683190.03, 3393238.31; 683189.67, 3393252.19; 
683214.05, 3393256.78; 683227.92, 3393258.46; 683266.03, 3393270.03; 
683309.50, 3393279.08; 683347.79, 3393284.04; 683367.66, 3393283.89; 
683389.34, 3393286.52; 683469.22, 3393300.40; 683524.08, 3393304.46; 
683580.93, 3393308.57; 683593.71, 3393300.97; 683608.59, 3393292.07; 
683614.08, 3393305.37; 683626.69, 3393331.18; 683640.90, 3393356.14; 
683656.64, 3393380.17; 683673.86, 3393403.15; 683692.49, 3393425.01; 
683712.46, 3393445.66; 683733.68, 3393465.01; 683756.08, 3393482.99; 
683779.56, 3393499.53; 683804.04, 3393514.57; 683829.41, 3393528.03; 
683855.57, 3393539.88; 683882.43, 3393550.06; 683909.88, 3393558.54; 
683937.80, 3393565.27; 683966.09, 3393570.24; 683994.63, 3393573.42; 
684023.32, 3393574.80.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-8, Subunit C is provided at 
paragraph (6)(xiv)(B) of this entry.
    (xiii) Unit RFS-9, Subunit A--Calhoun County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Broad Branch, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 664818.75, 3351879.40; 664810.75, 3352336.50; 664839.47, 
3352336.10; 664868.11, 3352333.90; 664896.55, 3352329.90; 664924.68, 
3352324.13; 664952.40, 3352316.60; 664979.59, 3352307.34; 665006.14, 
3352296.40; 665031.95, 3352283.81; 665056.93, 3352269.63; 665080.96, 
3352253.90; 665103.96, 3352236.70; 665125.83, 3352218.08; 665146.49, 
3352198.13; 665165.86, 3352176.93; 665183.85, 3352154.54; 665200.41, 
3352131.08; 665215.46, 3352106.61; 665228.94, 3352081.26; 665240.81, 
3352055.10; 665251.01, 3352028.25; 665259.50, 3352000.82; 665266.26, 
3351972.90; 665271.25, 3351944.62; 665274.45, 3351916.08; 665275.85, 
3351887.39; 665275.45, 3351858.67; 665273.25, 3351830.04; 665269.26, 
3351801.60; 665263.48, 3351773.46; 665255.95, 3351745.75; 665246.70, 
3351718.56; 665235.75, 3351692.00; 665223.16, 3351666.19; 665208.98, 
3351641.22; 665193.25, 3351617.18; 665176.05, 3351594.19; 665157.44, 
3351572.31; 665137.49, 3351551.65; 665116.28, 3351532.29; 665093.90, 
3351514.29; 665070.43, 3351497.73; 665045.97, 3351482.68; 665020.61, 
3351469.20; 664994.45, 3351457.33; 664967.61, 3351447.13; 664940.17, 
3351438.64; 664912.26, 3351431.89; 664883.97, 3351426.90; 664855.43, 
3351423.70; 664826.74, 3351422.29; 664798.03, 3351422.69; 664769.39, 
3351424.89; 664740.95, 3351428.89; 664712.82, 3351434.66; 664685.10, 
3351442.19; 664657.91, 3351451.45; 664631.36, 3351462.39; 664605.54, 
3351474.98; 664580.57, 3351489.17; 664556.54, 3351504.89; 664533.54, 
3351522.09; 664511.67, 3351540.71; 664491.01, 3351560.66; 664471.64, 
3351581.87; 664453.64, 3351604.25; 664437.09, 3351627.72; 664422.04, 
3351652.18; 664408.55, 3351677.53; 664396.69, 3351703.69; 664386.49, 
3351730.54; 664377.99, 3351757.97; 664371.24, 3351785.89; 664366.25, 
3351814.17; 664363.05, 3351842.71; 664361.65, 3351871.40; 664362.05, 
3351900.12; 664364.25, 3351928.75; 664368.24, 3351957.19; 664374.02, 
3351985.33; 664381.55, 3352013.04; 664390.80, 3352040.23; 664401.74, 
3352066.79; 664414.33, 3352092.60; 664428.52, 3352117.57; 664444.24, 
3352141.60; 664461.45, 3352164.60; 664480.06, 3352186.47; 664500.01, 
3352207.14; 664521.22, 3352226.50; 664543.60, 3352244.50; 664567.07, 
3352261.06; 664591.53, 3352276.11; 664616.89, 3352289.59; 664643.04, 
3352301.46; 664669.89, 3352311.66; 664697.33, 3352320.15; 664725.24, 
3352326.90; 664753.53, 3352331.89; 664782.07, 3352335.09; 664810.75, 
3352336.50.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-9, Subunit A is provided at 
paragraph (6)(xiv)(B) of this entry.
    (xiv) Unit RFS-9, Subunit B--Calhoun County, Florida. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Dead Lake, Florida.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 677786.48, 3346665.69; 676322.21, 3345710.86; 676293.52, 
3345709.49; 676264.80, 3345709.91; 676236.17, 3345712.14; 676207.73, 
3345716.17; 676179.60, 3345721.97; 676151.89, 3345729.52; 676124.71, 
3345738.80; 676098.16, 3345749.77; 676072.36, 3345762.39; 676047.40, 
3345776.60; 676023.38, 3345792.34; 676000.40, 3345809.57; 675978.54, 
3345828.20; 675957.90, 3345848.17; 675938.55, 3345869.40; 675920.57, 
3345891.80; 675904.04, 3345915.28; 675889.01, 3345939.76; 675875.55, 
3345965.13; 675863.71, 3345991.30; 675853.53, 3346018.16; 675845.07, 
3346045.60; 675838.34, 3346073.52; 675833.38, 3346101.81; 675830.20, 
3346130.36; 675828.82, 3346159.05; 675829.25, 3346187.76; 675831.48, 
3346216.40; 675835.50, 3346244.84; 675841.31, 3346272.97; 675848.86, 
3346300.67; 675858.14, 3346327.85; 675869.11, 3346354.40; 675881.73, 
3346380.20; 675895.94, 3346405.16; 675911.69, 3346429.18; 675928.91, 
3346452.16; 675947.55, 3346474.02; 675967.52, 3346494.66; 675988.75, 
3346514.01; 676011.15, 3346531.98; 676034.63, 3346548.52; 676059.11, 
3346563.55; 676084.48, 3346577.01; 676110.65, 3346588.85; 676137.51, 
3346599.02; 679138.53, 3347597.18; 679165.98, 3347605.65; 679193.90, 
3347612.37; 679222.19, 3347617.34; 679250.74, 3347620.51; 679279.43, 
3347621.89; 679308.15, 3347621.46; 679336.78, 3347619.23; 679365.22, 
3347615.21; 679393.35, 3347609.41; 679421.06, 3347601.85; 679448.25, 
3347592.57; 679474.79, 3347581.60; 679500.60, 3347568.99; 679525.56, 
3347554.78; 679549.58, 3347539.03; 679572.56, 3347521.81; 679594.42, 
3347503.17; 679615.06, 3347483.20; 679634.41, 3347461.97; 679652.39, 
3347439.57; 679668.92, 3347416.09; 679683.95, 3347391.61; 679697.41, 
3347366.24; 679709.25, 3347340.07; 679719.43, 3347313.22; 679727.89, 
3347285.77;

[[Page 6770]]

679734.62, 3347257.85; 679739.58, 3347229.56; 679742.76, 3347201.01; 
679744.14, 3347172.32; 679743.71, 3347143.61; 679741.48, 3347114.97; 
679737.46, 3347086.53; 679731.66, 3347058.40; 679724.10, 3347030.69; 
679714.82, 3347003.51; 679703.85, 3346976.97; 679691.23, 3346951.16; 
679677.02, 3346926.20; 679661.27, 3346902.19; 679644.05, 3346879.20; 
679625.41, 3346857.35; 679605.44, 3346836.70; 679584.21, 3346817.36; 
679561.81, 3346799.38; 679538.33, 3346782.84; 679513.85, 3346767.82; 
679488.47, 3346754.36; 679462.31, 3346742.52; 679435.45, 3346732.34; 
676434.42, 3345734.20; 676406.97, 3345725.73; 676379.05, 3345719.00; 
676350.76, 3345714.04; 676322.21, 3345710.86.
    (B) Note: Map of Units RFS-8 and RFS-9 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6771]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.009

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

[[Page 6772]]

    (7) Reticulated flatwood salamander--Baker and Miller Counties, 
Georgia.
    (i) Unit RFS-10, Subunit A--Miller County, Georgia. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Donalsonville NE, Georgia.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 709773.06, 3456290.97; 709801.78, 3456290.64; 709830.43, 
3456288.51; 709858.89, 3456284.58; 709887.04, 3456278.87; 709914.78, 
3456271.41; 709942.00, 3456262.22; 709968.58, 3456251.34; 709994.43, 
3456238.81; 710019.45, 3456224.68; 710043.52, 3456209.01; 710066.57, 
3456191.86; 710088.49, 3456173.30; 710109.20, 3456153.39; 710128.62, 
3456132.23; 710146.68, 3456109.89; 710163.30, 3456086.45; 710178.41, 
3456062.02; 710191.96, 3456036.69; 710203.89, 3456010.56; 710214.16, 
3455983.73; 710222.72, 3455956.31; 710229.54, 3455928.41; 710234.60, 
3455900.13; 710237.88, 3455871.59; 710239.35, 3455842.91; 710239.02, 
3455814.18; 710236.89, 3455785.53; 710232.96, 3455757.08; 710227.25, 
3455728.92; 710219.79, 3455701.18; 710210.60, 3455673.97; 710199.72, 
3455647.38; 710187.19, 3455621.53; 710173.06, 3455596.52; 710157.39, 
3455572.44; 710140.24, 3455549.40; 710121.68, 3455527.48; 710101.77, 
3455506.76; 710080.61, 3455487.34; 710058.27, 3455469.29; 710034.83, 
3455452.67; 710010.40, 3455437.56; 709985.07, 3455424.01; 709958.94, 
3455412.08; 709932.11, 3455401.81; 709904.69, 3455393.25; 709876.79, 
3455386.42; 709848.51, 3455381.36; 709819.97, 3455378.09; 709791.29, 
3455376.62; 709762.56, 3455376.95; 709733.91, 3455379.08; 709705.46, 
3455383.01; 709677.30, 3455388.71; 709649.56, 3455396.18; 709622.35, 
3455405.37; 709595.76, 3455416.25; 709569.91, 3455428.78; 709544.90, 
3455442.90; 709520.82, 3455458.57; 709497.78, 3455475.73; 709475.86, 
3455494.29; 709455.15, 3455514.19; 709435.72, 3455535.36; 709417.67, 
3455557.70; 709401.05, 3455581.13; 709385.94, 3455605.56; 709372.39, 
3455630.89; 709360.46, 3455657.02; 709350.19, 3455683.85; 709341.63, 
3455711.27; 709334.80, 3455739.18; 709329.75, 3455767.45; 709326.47, 
3455795.99; 709325.00, 3455824.68; 709325.33, 3455853.40; 709327.46, 
3455882.05; 709331.39, 3455910.51; 709337.10, 3455938.66; 709344.56, 
3455966.40; 709353.75, 3455993.62; 709364.63, 3456020.20; 709377.16, 
3456046.05; 709391.29, 3456071.07; 709406.96, 3456095.14; 709424.11, 
3456118.19; 709442.67, 3456140.11; 709462.57, 3456160.82; 709483.74, 
3456180.24; 709506.08, 3456198.30; 709529.51, 3456214.92; 709553.94, 
3456230.03; 709579.27, 3456243.58; 709605.40, 3456255.51; 709632.23, 
3456265.78; 709659.65, 3456274.34; 709687.56, 3456281.16; 709715.83, 
3456286.22; 709744.37, 3456289.49; 709773.06, 3456290.97.
    (B) Note: Map depicting Unit RFS-10, Subunit A is provided at 
paragraph (7)(ii)(B) of this entry.
    (ii) Unit RFS-10, Subunit B--Baker County, Georgia. From USGS 
1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Bethany, Georgia.
    (A) Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD83 coordinates 
(E, N): 734799.11, 3462120.86; 735025.60, 3462958.51; 735075.16, 
3462764.67; 735444.38, 3461469.20; 735412.19, 3461400.33; 735420.28, 
3461310.28; 735420.28, 3461223.05; 735430.58, 3461136.30; 735479.60, 
3461141.39; 735578.13, 3461132.68; 735613.43, 3461091.58; 735650.82, 
3461010.58; 735669.51, 3460923.35; 735703.92, 3460811.06; 735756.74, 
3460736.42; 735800.35, 3460649.19; 735744.28, 3460624.27; 735432.74, 
3460624.27; 735021.51, 3460618.04; 735040.20, 3460767.58; 734952.97, 
3460823.66; 734840.82, 3460861.04; 734812.02, 3460938.41; 734541.74, 
3461658.58; 734504.36, 3461783.19; 734301.81, 3462565.34; 734165.92, 
3462612.37; 734048.55, 3462652.99; 733925.73, 3462646.35; 733818.44, 
3462640.54; 733818.98, 3462680.42; 733831.44, 3462724.03; 733831.91, 
3462789.15; 733887.18, 3462970.92; 733929.82, 3463111.13; 733981.10, 
3463244.98; 734029.39, 3463371.05; 734111.12, 3463466.09; 734161.67, 
3463534.03; 734214.05, 3463602.19; 734302.98, 3463595.69; 734405.69, 
3463535.78; 734460.75, 3463434.34; 734585.36, 3463428.11; 734697.51, 
3463384.49; 734766.02, 3463372.96; 734844.43, 3463268.82; 734936.26, 
3463146.86; 735025.60, 3462958.51.
    (B) Note: Map of Unit RFS-10 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 6773]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR10FE09.010


[[Page 6774]]


* * * * *

    Dated: January 29, 2009.
Jane Lyder,
Assistant Deputy Secretary, Department of the Interior.
 [FR Doc. E9-2403 Filed 2-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C