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


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AE38


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of petition finding.

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

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

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

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

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

[[Page 65788]]

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

[[Page 65789]]

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

Previous Federal Action

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

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act and regulations (50 CFR 
part 424) promulgated to implement the listing provisions of the Act 
set forth the procedures for adding species to the Federal lists. A 
species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due 
to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1). These 
factors and their application to the flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma 
cingulatum Cope) are as follows:
    A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range. The major threat to the flatwoods 
salamander is loss of both its longleaf pine/slash pine flatwoods 
terrestrial habitat and its isolated, seasonally ponded breeding 
habitat. The combined pine flatwoods (longleaf pine-wiregrass flatwoods 
and slash pine flatwoods) historical acreage was approximately 12.8 
million ha (32 million ac) (Wolfe et al. 1988, Outcalt 1997). Today, 
the combined flatwoods acreage has been reduced to 2.3 million ha (5.6 
million ac) or approximately 18 percent of its original extent. These 
remaining pine flatwoods (non-plantation forests) areas are typically 
fragmented, degraded, second-growth forests.
    Large acreages of pine flatwoods have been eliminated through land 
use conversions, primarily urban development and conversion to 
agriculture and pine plantations (Schultz 1983, Stout and Marion 1993, 
Outcalt and Sheffield 1996, Outcalt 1997). Surveys of historical 
flatwoods salamander localities documented the destruction of nine 
sites from urban development or agriculture and loss of three 
additional sites due to their conversion to pine plantations. State 
forest inventories completed between 1989 and 1995 indicate that 
flatwoods losses through land use conversion are still occurring 
(Outcalt 1997). In Florida and Georgia, the States where flatwoods 
habitat is concentrated and where most flatwoods salamander populations 
occur, 52,600 ha (130,000 ac) were lost to urban and agricultural use 
during the survey cycle of 8 years (Outcalt 1997).

[[Page 65790]]

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

[[Page 65791]]

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

[[Page 65792]]

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

Critical Habitat

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

Available Conservation Measures

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

[[Page 65793]]

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

[[Page 65794]]

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

Public Comments Solicited

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

National Environmental Policy Act

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

Required Determinations

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

References Cited

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

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Amend section 17.11(h) by adding the following, in alphabetical 
order under AMPHIBIANS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special  
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules   
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened                                                           
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
            AMPHIBIANS                                                                                                                                  
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Salamander flatwoods.............  Ambystoma cingulatum  U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA,  Entire.............  T                        NA           NA             
                                                          SC).                                                                                          
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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