Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 65787

Dated: November 25, 1997.

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

[FR Doc. 97–32738 Filed 12–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

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 bushygilled, 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 midlateral 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
65788 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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).
65790 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 secondgrowth 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 clearcut. 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 clearcutting, 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 (secondgrowth 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.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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
65792 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules 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
65794 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 241 / Tuesday, December 16, 1997 / Proposed Rules

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 recordkeeping 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:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

* * * * * * *

AMPHIBIANS

* * * * * * *

Salamander

flatwoods.

Ambystoma

cingulatum.

U.S.A. (AL, FL, GA,

SC).

Entire ....................... T NA NA

* * * * * * *

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