Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54125 

intention to appear may be allowed to 

testify at the hearing if time permits, but 

this determination is at the discretion of 

the presiding ALJ. 

Certification of the record and final 

determination after the informal public 

hearing. Following the close of the 

hearing and the posthearing comment 

period, the ALJ will certify the record to 

the Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health. This 

record will consist of all of the written 

comments, oral testimony, documentary 

evidence, and other material received 

during the hearing. Following 

certification of the record, OSHA will 

review the proposed provisions in light 

of all the evidence received as part of 

the record, and then will issue the final 

determinations based on the entire 

record. 

Authority and Signature 

This document was prepared under 

the authority of Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for 

Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. 

Department of Labor, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, 

pursuant to Sections 6(b) of the 

Occupational Safety and Health Act of 

1970 (29 U.S.C. 655), Section 3704 of 

the Contract Work Hours and Safety 

Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 3701 et seq.), 

Secretary of Labor’s Order 5–2007 (72 

FR 31160), and 29 CFR part 1911. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of 

September 2008. 

Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. E8–21852 Filed 9–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Forest Service 

36 CFR Part 294 

RIN 0596–AC74 

Special Areas; Roadless Area 

Conservation; Applicability to the 

National Forests in Colorado, 

Regulatory Risk Assessment 

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; risk assessment 

and request for comments. 

SUMMARY: On July 25, 2008, the Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

proposed to establish a State-specific 

rule to provide management direction 

for conserving Colorado roadless areas 

(73 FR 43544). This proposed rule is 

estimated to have more than 

$100,000,000 of economic impact. The 

proposed rule would satisfy the 

economic impact and subject matter 

criteria of 7 U.S.C. 2204e and thus 

requires a regulatory risk assessment. 

The Forest Service is seeking comment 

on the assessment. A copy of the 

Regulatory Risk Assessment is available 

at the national roadless Web site 

http://www.roadless.fs.fed.us. 

DATES: Comments must be received in 

writing by October 23, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on the 

Regulatory Risk Assessment may be 

incorporated into comments on the 

proposed rule. Comments may be sent 

via e-mail to 

COcomments@fsroadless.org. 

Comments also may be submitted via 

the internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Written comments 

concerning this notice should be 

addressed to Roadless Area 

Conservation—Colorado, P.O. Box 

162909, Sacramento, CA 95816–2909, or 

via facsimile to 916–456–6724. All 

comments, including names and 

addresses, when provided, are placed in 

the record and are available for public 

inspection and copying. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

information on the Regulatory Risk 

Assessment only, contact Ken Karkula 

at 202–205–2869. Individuals using 

telecommunication devices for the deaf 

(TDD) may call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 

between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Eastern Time, 

Monday through Friday. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Forest 

Service is proposing to establish a Statespecific rule to provide management 

direction for conserving Colorado 

roadless areas. This rule is estimated to 

have more than $100,000,000 of 

economic impact. The rule satisfies the 

economic impact and subject matter 

criteria of 7 U.S.C. 2204e and thus 

requires a regulatory risk assessment. 

This risk assessment describes the 

types of risks to the environment that 

the proposed rule is designed to reduce, 

as well as discussing the likelihood that 

the proposed rule will reduce those 

risks. Examining risk at the site-specific 

level is not practical in this assessment 

therefore this risk assessment will 

address risks at the broader 

programmatic level. 

The purpose of the proposed rule is 

to provide lasting protection, within the 

context of multiple-use management, for 

roadless areas within the National 

Forests in Colorado. The regulatory risk 

assessment assesses the degree to which 

the rule reduces the risk it was designed 

to address. In this regulatory risk 

assessment, the risk that the rule 

addresses is the risk of not providing 

lasting protection, within the context of 

multiple-use management, to the 

roadless areas within the National 

Forests in Colorado. The provisions of 

the proposed rule are intended to 

provide lasting protection; in the 

absence of the rule such protection is 

not guaranteed, as current regulatory 

direction (2001 Roadless rule) continues 

to be litigated. 

In general, all of the alternatives are 

expected to reduce the risk of not 

providing lasting protection to roadless 

areas in comparison to the condition 

where no management plans are 

implemented. Differences between the 

alternatives are based on the different 

levels of road construction and 

reconstruction, tree-cutting, and other 

activities discussed. Differences in the 

degree to which the alternatives reduce 

the risk of not providing lasting 

protection are small. Due to uncertainty 

over its legal status, Alternative 1 (2001 

Roadless Rule) presents an increased 

risk of not providing lasting protection 

over the other two alternatives since it 

is unclear whether or not the rule will 

be modified by litigation. Alternative 2 

(Proposed Colorado Roadless Rule) 

reduces the risk of not providing lasting 

protection over Alternative 3 (Forest 

Plans) due to the decreased amount of 

roading, tree-cutting, and mineral 

development over the amounts 

estimated if individual forest plans 

rather than a roadless rule controlled 

the roadless areas. 

Dated: August 28, 2008. 

Charles L. Myers, 

Associate Deputy Chief for National Forest 

System. 

[FR Doc. E8–21899 Filed 9–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[FWS-R4-ES-2008-0082; 92210750083-B2] 

RIN 1018-AU85 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Proposed Endangered 

Status for Reticulated Flatwoods 

Salamander; Proposed Designation of 

Critical Habitat for Frosted Flatwoods 

Salamander and Reticulated Flatwoods 

Salamander 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental 

information. 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
54126 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are providing 

supplemental information on the 

proposal to split the listing under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act), of the currently 

threatened flatwoods salamander 

(Ambystoma cingulatum) into two 

distinct species: frosted flatwoods 

salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) 

and reticulated flatwoods salamander 

(Ambystoma bishopi) due to a change in 

taxonomy. The frosted flatwoods 

salamander will maintain the status of 

threatened, and contained in this 

document is the threats analysis under 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act which explains 

this determination. We are accepting 

public comments from all interested 

parties on the proposed rule (73 FR 

47258, August 13, 2008), the associated 

draft economic analysis, the listing 

status of both species, and the 

supplemental information we are 

providing in this document. If you 

submitted comments previously, then 

you do not need to resubmit them 

because we have already incorporated 

them into the public record and we will 

fully consider them in preparation of 

our final determination. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received on or before October 14, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: RIN 1018- 

AU85; Division of Policy and Directives 

Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 

222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We 

will post all comments on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see the 

Public Comments section below for 

more information). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray 

Aycock, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Mississippi Field 

Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, 

Jackson, MS 39213; telephone: 601-321- 

1122; facsimile: 601-965-4340. If you 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information 

Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments 

We will accept written comments and 

information we receive on our before 

the date listed in the DATES section on 

our proposed critical habitat 

designation, proposed endangered 

status for reticulated flatwoods 

salamander, the draft economic analysis 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 13, 2008 (73 FR 47258), and 

proposed threatened status for frosted 

flatwoods salamander (as presented in 

this document). We will consider 

information and recommendations from 

all interested parties. Regarding the 

supplemental information we present in 

this document, we are particularly 

interested in comments concerning: 

(1) Any available information on 

known or suspected threats and 

proposed or ongoing development 

projects with the potential to threaten 

either the frosted flatwoods salamander 

or the reticulated flatwoods salamander 

or any information on the need to 

change the status of either species, or 

(2) The effects of potential threat 

factors that are the basis for a listing 

determination under section 4(a) of the 

Act, which are: 

(a) Present or threatened destruction, 

modification, or curtailment of the 

species’ habitat or range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials by one of the methods listed 

in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 

accept comments you send by e-mail or 

fax or to an address not listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

We will post your entire comment— 

including your personal identifying 

information—on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. If you provide 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing the proposed rule and 

draft economic analysis, will be 

available for public inspection on http:// 

www.regulations.gov, or by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Mississippi Field Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Background 

It is our intent to discuss only those 

topics directly relevant to the analysis of 

the five listing factors affecting the 

frosted flatwoods salamander. For more 

information on the flatwoods 

salamander, refer to the final listing rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

April 1, 1999 (64 FR 15691) and the 

proposed designation of critical habitat 

published in the Federal Register on 

August 13, 2008 (73 FR 47258). 

Listing of the Frosted Flatwoods 

Salamander 

History of the Action 

The final rule to list the flatwoods 

salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum) as 

threatened was published on April 1, 

1999 (64 FR 15691). On August 13, 

2008, we published a proposed rule to 

split the species into two distinct 

species: frosted flatwoods salamander 

(Ambystoma cingulatum) and 

reticulated flatwoods salamander 

(Ambystoma bishopi) due to new 

taxonomic information (73 FR 47258). 

In that proposed rule, we provided the 

analysis of the threats for the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander and our 

determination of its endangered status. 

In this document, we are publishing our 

analysis and determination to retain 

threatened status for the frosted 

flatwoods salamander. 

Species Information 

Taxonomic revision resulting from 

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

415-429) split the flatwoods salamander 

into two species—the frosted flatwoods 

salamander and the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander. Based on the best 

available information, the life-history 

traits and habitat use of both the frosted 

flatwoods salamander and the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander are 

similar to those previously described for 

the flatwoods salamander (64 FR 15691, 

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

2008). However, most of our references 

predate Pauly et al. (2007) and, 

therefore, do not distinguish between 

the two species. 

Both species of flatwoods 

salamanders are moderately sized 

salamanders that are generally black to 

chocolate-black with fine, irregular, 

light gray lines and specks that form a 

cross-banded pattern across their backs 

(back pattern more net-like in the 

reticulated flatwoods salamander). The 

frosted flatwoods salamander generally 

tends to be larger than the reticulated 

flatwoods salamander. Adults are 

terrestrial and live underground most of 

the year. They breed in relatively small, 

isolated ephemeral ponds where the 

larvae develop until metamorphosis. 

Post-metamorphic salamanders migrate 

out of the ponds and into the uplands 

where they live until they move back to 

ponds to breed as adults. 

Flatwoods salamanders are endemic 

to the lower southeastern Coastal Plain 

and occur in what were historically 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54127 

longleaf pine-wiregrass flatwoods and 

savannas. The historical range of what 

is now considered the frosted flatwoods 

salamander included parts of the States 

of Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. 

This area encompassed the lower 

Coastal Plain of the southeastern United 

States along the Gulf Coast east of the 

Apalachicola–Flint Rivers, across north 

Florida, south into north-central 

Florida, and north along the Atlantic 

Coast through coastal Georgia and South 

Carolina. 

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

salamander. Twenty historical records 

(with supporting locality information) 

for the frosted flatwoods salamander are 

known from eight counties in Florida. 

Frosted flatwoods salamander breeding 

has been documented at only four (20 

percent) of these sites since 1990. 

Surveys conducted since 1990 by 

Federal and State agency personnel, as 

well as private parties, have resulted in 

the identification of more than 50 

additional frosted flatwoods salamander 

breeding sites, including two sites in 

Jefferson County, a county that 

previously was not known to be 

occupied by the salamander. Most of 

these new breeding sites are located on 

the Apalachicola and Osceola National 

Forests, and on St. Marks National 

Wildlife Refuge. Sixteen populations of 

the frosted flatwoods salamander are 

known from Baker, Franklin, Jefferson, 

Liberty, and Wakulla Counties in 

Florida. 

Thirty-four historical records for the 

frosted flatwoods salamander are known 

from 20 counties in Georgia. Frosted 

flatwoods salamanders have not been 

seen again at any of these sites in recent 

years; however, surveys conducted 

since 1990 have resulted in the 

discovery of 23 new breeding sites. All 

but one of these new sites are located on 

the Fort Stewart Military Installation. 

The one additional pond was 

discovered on the Townsend Bombing 

Range. Currently, these breeding sites 

support six frosted flatwoods 

salamander populations in Bryan, 

Evans, Liberty, and McIntosh Counties, 

Georgia, all on Department of Defense 

lands. The frosted flatwoods salamander 

is assumed extirpated from 16 other 

counties in Georgia where it previously 

occurred. However, some appropriate 

habitat still remains on the Okefenokee 

National Wildlife Refuge and the 

potential may exist for the species to 

occur there. 

Thirty historical records for the 

frosted flatwoods salamander are known 

from five counties in South Carolina. 

Since 1990, metamorphic frosted 

flatwoods salamanders have been 

documented at six (21 percent) of these 

sites, and one new breeding site has 

been discovered. Currently, four 

populations of the frosted flatwoods 

salamander are known from Berkeley, 

Charleston, and Jasper Counties in 

South Carolina. Two populations are on 

private land in Jasper County: one 

population occurs on the Francis 

Marion National Forest in Berkeley 

County, and one population occurs on 

the Santee Coastal Preserve (stateowned and -managed) in Charleston 

County. 

The combined data from all survey 

work completed since 1990 in Florida, 

Georgia, and South Carolina indicate 

there are 26 populations of the frosted 

flatwoods salamander. Some of these 

populations are inferred from the 

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

flatwoods salamander populations occur 

primarily on public land. Sixteen of the 

populations (62 percent of total 

populations of the species) on public 

land represent metapopulations 

supported by more than one breeding 

site. A single population occurs on each 

of the following publicly owned sites: 

Tate’s Hell State Forest and Osceola 

National Forest in Florida; Townsend 

Bombing Range in Georgia; and Francis 

Marion National Forest and Santee 

Coastal Reserve in South Carolina. In 

Florida, habitat on Apalachicola 

National Forest supports 10 populations 

and on St. Marks National Wildlife 

Refuge supports 2 populations. In 

Georgia, five populations occur on Fort 

Stewart Military Installation. Three (12 

percent) frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations are solely on private land. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species (Frosted Flatwoods 

Salamander) 

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

et seq.) and regulations (50 CFR part 

424) promulgated to implement the 

listing provisions of the Act set forth the 

procedures for adding species to the 

Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A 

species may be determined to be 

endangered or threatened due to one or 

more of the five factors described in 

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

listing rule for the flatwoods salamander 

(64 FR 15691; April 1, 1999) contained 

a discussion of these five factors. Only 

those factors relevant to the frosted 

flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma 

cingulatum Cope, 1867) are described 

below: 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

The major historical threat to the 

frosted flatwoods salamander was loss 

of both its longleaf pine–slash pine 

flatwoods terrestrial habitat and its 

isolated, seasonally ponded breeding 

habitat. The combined pine flatwoods 

(longleaf pine–wiregrass flatwoods and 

slash pine flatwoods) historical area was 

approximately 32 million acres (ac) 

(12.8 million hectares (ha)) (Outcalt 

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

to 5.6 million ac (2.27 million ha) or 

approximately 18 percent of its original 

extent (Outcalt 1997, p. 4). These 

remaining pine flatwoods (nonplantation forests) areas are typically 

fragmented, degraded, second-growth 

forests (Outcalt 1997, p. 6). Conversion 

of pine flatwoods to intensively 

managed (use of heavy mechanical site 

preparation, high stocking rates, low fire 

frequencies) slash or loblolly 

plantations often resulted in 

degradation of flatwoods salamander 

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

dominated by shrubs or pine needles 

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

61-63). Disturbance-sensitive 

groundcover species, such as wiregrass 

(Aristida stricta [= A. beyrichiana] 

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

(Sporobolus spp.), and perennial forbs 

were either greatly reduced in extent or 

were replaced by weedy pioneering 

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

Outcalt and Lewis 1988, pp. 1-12; 

Hardin and White 1989, pp. 243-244). 

Flatwoods salamanders are unlikely to 

persist in uplands with a disturbed, 

wiregrass-depauperate groundcover 

(Palis 1997, p. 63). 

Degradation of the remaining frosted 

flatwoods salamander habitat is a 

current, ongoing threat. Forest 

management that includes intensive site 

preparation may adversely affect 

flatwoods salamanders directly and 

indirectly (Means et al. 1996, p. 426). 

Bedding (a technique in which a small 

ridge of surface soil is elevated as a 

planting bed) alters the surface soil 

layers, disrupts the site hydrology, and 

often eliminates the native herbaceous 

groundcover. This can have a cascading 

effect of reducing the invertebrate 

community that serves as a food source 

for flatwoods salamander adults. Postlarval and adult flatwoods salamanders 

occupy upland flatwoods sites where 

they live underground in crayfish 

burrows, root channels, or burrows of 

their own making (Goin 1950, p. 311; 

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

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


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
54128 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

68-71). The occurrence of these 

underground habitats is dependent 

upon protection of the soil structure. 

Intensive site preparation destroys the 

subterranean voids and may result in 

entombing, injuring, or crushing 

individuals. 

Ecologists consider fire suppression 

the primary reason for the degradation 

of remaining longleaf pine forest habitat. 

The disruption of the natural fire cycle 

has resulted in an increase in slash and 

loblolly pine on sites formerly 

dominated by longleaf pine, an increase 

in hardwood understory, and a decrease 

in herbaceous ground cover (Wolfe et al. 

1988, p. 132). Although frosted 

flatwoods salamanders have been found 

at sites with predominately loblolly or 

slash pine, the long-term viability of 

populations at these sites is unknown. 

In addition, ponds surrounded by pine 

plantations and protected from the 

natural fire regime may become 

unsuitable as frosted flatwoods 

salamander breeding sites due to canopy 

closure and the resultant reduction in 

emergent herbaceous vegetation needed 

for egg deposition and larval 

development sites (Palis 1997, p. 62). 

Lack of fire may result in the 

development of a thick shrub zone, 

making it physically difficult or 

impossible for adult salamanders to 

enter the breeding ponds (Ripley and 

Printiss 2005, pp. 1-2, 11). 

Alterations of the longleaf pine 

ecosystem, as a result of incompatible 

forest practices, have caused the historic 

loss of most of the original frosted 

flatwoods salamander habitat. Although 

conversion of native pine flatwoods to 

plantation forests is not considered a 

significant threat at this time, most of 

the historic extirpation of frosted 

flatwoods populations in Florida, 

Georgia, and South Carolina over the 

last six decades resulted from habitat 

degradation on lands managed for 

timber extraction. 

Land use conversions to housing, 

other development projects, and 

agriculture eliminated large areas of 

pine flatwoods in the past (Schultz 

1983, pp. 24-47; Stout and Marion 1993, 

pp. 422-429; Outcalt and Sheffield 1996, 

pp. 1-5; Outcalt 1997, pp. 1-6). 

Residential development and 

conversion to agriculture have resulted 

in the historical loss of one frosted 

flatwoods salamander population each 

from Ben Hill, Berrien, Brooks, 

Effingham, Emanuel, and Irwin 

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

an additional site has been degraded in 

Orangeburg County, South Carolina, and 

is not currently occupied (LaClaire 

1995). State forest inventories 

completed between 1989 and 1995 

indicated that flatwoods losses through 

land use conversion were still occurring 

(Outcalt 1997, pp. 3-6); however further 

conversions are likely to impact only 

the three populations that remain on 

private lands. 

In addition to the loss of upland 

forested habitat, the number and 

diversity of small wetlands where 

frosted flatwoods salamanders breed 

have been substantially reduced. 

Threats to breeding sites include 

alterations in hydrology, agricultural 

and urban development, road 

construction, incompatible silvicultural 

practices, shrub encroachment, 

dumping in or filling of ponds, 

conversion of wetlands to fish ponds, 

domestic animal grazing, soil 

disturbance, and fire suppression 

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

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

72). Hydrological alterations, such as 

those resulting from ditches created to 

drain flatwoods sites or fire breaks and 

plow lines, represent one of the most 

serious threats to frosted flatwoods 

salamander breeding sites. Lowered 

water levels and shortened 

hydroperiods at these sites may prevent 

successful flatwoods salamander 

recruitment because larval salamanders 

require 11 to 18 weeks to reach 

metamorphosis and leave the ponds 

(Palis 1995, p. 352). 

U.S. Geological Survey has 

documented multiple drought periods 

in the southeastern United States since 

the 1890s (USGS Open File Report 00- 

380, p. 1). Among significant periods 

documented in the last three decades 

are: 1980-1982, 1984-1988, 1998-2000 

(USGS Water Supply Paper 2375), and 

currently from 2006-2008. Although 

drought is a naturally occurring 

condition, it presents additional 

complications for a species like the 

frosted flatwoods salamander, which 

has been extirpated from most of its 

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

6) conducted a study in Florida on a 

population of the frosted flatwoods 

salamander during a drought from 1999- 

2002. This study found 3 consecutive 

years of reproductive failure and a 

steadily declining adult immigration to 

breed at the site as the drought 

progressed. Taylor et al. (2005, p. 792) 

noted that wide variation in 

reproductive success is common among 

pond-breeding amphibians that depend 

on seasonal filling of these areas, but 

that adult persistence may buffer against 

fluctuations in that success, particularly 

for species that are long-lived. 

Although Palis et al. (2006) suggested 

that the flatwoods salamander may only 

live about 4 years (based on captive 

animals), we are currently unsure of the 

exact life span of wild individuals. 

Because of this, it is difficult to predict 

how long adults could persist in the 

landscape without a successful breeding 

event to replenish the population. 

However, Taylor et al. (2005, pp. 792, 

796) constructed a model to look at how 

many years of reproductive failure 

would be required to result in local 

extinction of pond-breeding 

salamanders (with varying life spans) 

and found that even without total 

reproductive failure, populations 

required moderate to high upland postmetamorphic survival to persist. In the 

model, catastrophic failure created 

fluctuations in the population, raised 

the threshold of survival required to 

achieve persistence, and imposed the 

possibility of extinction even under 

otherwise favorable environmental 

conditions. Reproductive failure for this 

species was closely tied to hydrologic 

conditions; insufficient or short 

hydroperiod was the primary cause for 

complete failure. In addition, early 

filling of the ponds could also facilitate 

the establishment of invertebrate or 

vertebrate predators before the 

salamander eggs hatched (Taylor et al., 

p. 796). Palis et al.. (2006, p. 6-7) 

discussed the necessity of protecting 

clusters of flatwoods salamander 

breeding sites, especially those with 

different hydrologic regimes, to guard 

against population declines at any one 

breeding site resulting from stochastic 

events, such as droughts (Palis 2006, p. 

7). Currently, 16 populations of the 

frosted flatwoods salamander that occur 

on public land are supported by 

multiple breeding sites. 

Habitat fragmentation of the longleaf 

pine ecosystem resulting from habitat 

conversion is primarily a historical 

threat to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander. Large tracts of intact 

longleaf pine flatwoods habitat are 

fragmented by pine plantations, roads, 

and unsuitable habitat. Although the 

threat of ongoing habitat fragmentation 

has slowed, the effect of past habitat 

loss is that many frosted flatwoods 

salamander populations are widely 

separated from each other by unsuitable 

habitat. This has been verified through 

recent reviews of aerial photography 

and site visits to localities of historical 

and current records for the species. 

Studies have shown that the loss of 

fragmented populations is common, and 

recolonization is critical for their 

regional survival (Fahrig and Merriam 

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

540). Amphibian populations may be 

unable to recolonize areas after local 

extirpations due to their physiological 

constraints, relatively low mobility, and 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54129 

site fidelity (Blaustein et al. 1994, pp. 

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

flatwoods salamander, 38 percent of 

populations have only one breeding 

pond. If the habitat at that site is 

destroyed, recolonization would be 

impossible (see further discussion of 

metapopulation dynamics under Factor 

E). 

Roads have contributed to habitat 

fragmentation by isolating blocks of 

remaining contiguous habitat. Roads 

disrupt migration routes and dispersal 

of individuals to and from breeding 

sites. Road construction can result in 

destruction of breeding ponds, as 

described above. In addition, vehicles 

may also cause the death of frosted 

flatwoods salamanders when they are 

attempting to cross roads (Means 1996, 

p. 2). Highway construction and 

associated development resulted in the 

destruction of a historic frosted 

flatwoods salamander breeding pond in 

Chatham County, Georgia (Seyle 1994, 

pp. 3-4). 

Off-road vehicle (ORV) use within 

frosted flatwoods salamander breeding 

ponds and their margins severely 

degrades the wetland habitat. In the 

Southeast, ORV use impacts habitat 

used by frosted flatwoods salamanders, 

has the potential to cause direct 

mortality of individual salamanders, 

and is a threat on both public and 

private land. On public lands, areas may 

be designated as off-limits to ORV use 

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

these restrictions are difficult to enforce. 

Even a single afternoon of individuals 

riding their ORVs in a pond can 

completely destroy the integrity of 

breeding sites by damaging or killing the 

herbaceous vegetation and rutting the 

substrate (Ripley and Printiss 2005, pp. 

11-12). There is also the potential for 

direct injury or mortality of salamanders 

by ORVs at breeding sites (Ripley and 

Printiss 2005, p. 12). 

In summary, the loss of habitat was a 

significant historical threat to the 

frosted flatwoods salamander. This 

range-wide loss of both upland and 

wetland habitat occurred primarily due 

to conversion of flatwoods sites to 

agriculture, residential development, 

and intensively managed pine 

plantations. This historic loss of habitat 

is presently compounded by current 

environmental conditions (drought), 

proposed projects on private land that 

do not require U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps) Corps permits, under 

the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et 

seq.), and the nature of pond-breeding 

salamanders to undergo periodic 

reproductive failure. We consider this 

threat to be primarily a past and future 

threat of moderate magnitude because 

most of the remaining occupied habitat 

of this species occurs on public lands 

that are managed to support the native 

longleaf pine ecosystem. However, 12 

percent of frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations are on private land where 

habitat continues to be degraded by fire 

suppression and incompatible 

management. If the remaining frosted 

flatwoods salamander habitat on public 

land continues to be protected from fire 

suppression and other incompatible 

forest management practices, road 

construction, and additional habitat 

fragmentation, the threat of habitat loss 

is expected to be limited. Localized 

threats on private lands would include 

loss or alteration of habitat from 

agriculture, residential development, 

road construction, incompatible forest 

management, ORVs, fire suppression, 

and ditching or draining wetland 

breeding sites. As a result, we have 

determined that the present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of frosted flatwoods 

salamander habitat and range represents 

a moderate but significant threat to the 

species. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

Overutilization does not appear to be 

a threat to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander at this time. There is no 

evidence of a past or current problem 

with collection of this species. 

Consequently, we have determined that 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes is not a threat to the frosted 

flatwoods salamander at this time. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Although disease has not been 

specifically documented in the frosted 

flatwoods salamander thus far, disease 

outbreaks with mass mortality in other 

species of salamanders indicate that 

disease may be a threat for this species 

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

‘‘Red-leg’’ disease (Aeromonas 

hydrophila), a pathogen bacterium, 

caused mortality of mole salamanders 

(A. talpoideum) at the breeding pond of 

the closely related reticulated flatwoods 

salamander in Miller County, Georgia 

(Maerz 2006), and reticulated flatwoods 

salamanders have not been observed at 

this site since the disease was reported. 

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

parasitic nematode (Hedruris siredonis, 

family Hedruridae) in larvae of the 

frosted flatwoods salamander from 

South Carolina and Florida. This 

parasite has been found in other 

ambystomatids and can cause 

individuals to become undersized and 

thin, thus reducing their fitness (Whiles 

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

were not considered heavy and were 

probably not having a negative impact 

on the larvae studied; however, 

environmental degradation may change 

the dynamics between salamander 

populations and normally innocuous 

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

Ranaviruses in the family Iridoviridae 

and chytrid fungus may be other 

potential threats, although the 

susceptibility of the frosted flatwoods 

salamander to these diseases is 

unknown. Ranaviruses have been 

responsible for die-offs of tiger 

salamanders throughout western North 

America and spotted salamanders (A. 

maculatum) in Maine (Daszak et al. 

1999, p. 736). Chytrid fungus has been 

discovered and associated with mass 

mortality in tiger salamanders in 

southern Arizona and California, and 

the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander (A. 

macrodactylum croceum) (Vredenburg 

and Summers 2001, p. 151; Davidson et 

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

Longcore 2005, p. 50). Chytrid has been 

found at Fort Stewart Military 

Installation in Georgia, a locality where 

the frosted flatwoods salamander occurs 

(Mitchell 2002, p. 191-202). This disease 

has negatively impacted populations of 

other ambystomatid salamanders (A. 

macrodactylum croceum) (Vredenburg 

and Summers 2001; Davidson et al. 

2003; Padgett-Flohr and Longcore 2005), 

and it is likely to negatively impact 

frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations as well. This discussion of 

disease in other species of closely 

related salamanders indicates the 

potential existence of similar threats to 

frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations. 

Exposure to increased predation by 

fish is a threat to the frosted flatwoods 

salamander when isolated, seasonally 

ponded wetland breeding sites are 

changed to or connected to more 

permanent wetlands inhabited by fish 

species not typically found in temporary 

ponds. Studies of other ambystomatid 

species have demonstrated a decline in 

larval survival in the presence of 

predatory fish (Semlitsch 1987, p. 481). 

Ponds may be modified specifically to 

serve as fish ponds or sites may be 

altered because of drainage ditches, 

firebreaks, or vehicle tracks that can all 

provide avenues for fish to enter the 

wetlands. 

Red imported fire ants (Solenopsis 

invicta) are potential predators of 

flatwoods salamanders, especially in 

disturbed areas. They have been seen in 

areas disturbed by the installation of 

drift fences at known frosted flatwoods 

salamander breeding sites (Palis 2008). 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
54130 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

Mortality of amphibians trapped at drift 

fences has occurred when fire ants were 

present and traps were not monitored 

with sufficient frequency (NCASI 2002, 

p. 6). The severity and magnitude of 

effects, as well as the long-term effect, 

of fire ants on frosted flatwoods 

salamander populations are currently 

unknown. 

In summary, diseases of amphibians 

in the southeastern United States 

remain largely unstudied. However, 

given the incidence of disease in species 

that could be considered surrogates for 

the frosted flatwoods salamander, the 

probability exists for similar infections 

to occur in frosted flatwoods 

salamander populations. We consider 

this to be a potential threat of low 

magnitude. Predation by fish is a 

historic threat that continues to be a 

localized problem when ditches, 

firebreaks, or vehicle ruts provide 

connections allowing the movement of 

fish from permanent water bodies into 

frosted flatwoods salamander breeding 

sites. Fire ants also have the potential of 

being a localized threat, particularly in 

disturbed areas. We consider these 

threats to be potential threats of low 

magnitude because 88 percent of frosted 

flatwoods salamander populations occur 

primarily on public lands where they 

are relatively protected. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

There are no existing regulatory 

mechanisms for the protection of the 

upland habitats where frosted 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 frosted 

flatwoods salamander. However, due to 

recent case law (Solid Waste Agency of 

Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 531 U.S. 

159 (2001); Rapanos v. U.S. 547 U.S. 

715 (2006)), isolated wetlands are no 

longer considered to be under Federal 

jurisdiction (not regulatory wetlands). 

Wetlands are only considered to be 

under the jurisdiction of the Corps if a 

‘‘significant nexus’’ exists to a navigable 

waterway or its tributaries. Currently, 

some Corps Districts do not coordinate 

with us on flatwoods salamanders and, 

since isolated wetlands are not 

considered under their jurisdiction, they 

are often not included on maps in 

permit applications (Brooks 2008). 

However, since most remaining frosted 

flatwoods salamander populations are 

on public land, which is unlikely to be 

developed, we do not consider this to be 

a significant threat. 

Longleaf pine habitat management 

plans have been written for public lands 

occupied by the frosted flatwoods 

salamander. They include management 

plans for State-owned lands and 

integrated natural resource management 

plans (INRMPs) for Department of 

Defense lands. Most of the plans contain 

specific goals and objectives regarding 

habitat management, including 

prescribed burning, that would benefit 

frosted flatwoods salamanders. 

Multiple-use is the guiding principle on 

most of these public lands, however, 

and protection of the frosted flatwoods 

salamander may be just one of many 

management goals including timber 

production and military and 

recreational use. 

At the State and local levels, 

regulatory mechanisms are limited. The 

flatwoods salamander is listed as a 

threatened species in the State of 

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

designation protects the species by 

preventing its sale, purchase, or 

possession in Georgia and by 

prohibiting actions that cause direct 

mortality of the species or the 

destruction of its habitat on lands 

owned by the State of Georgia (Ozier 

2008). However, there are no known 

frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations on lands owned by the 

State of Georgia. In 2001, the Florida 

Fish and Wildlife Conservation 

Commission (FFWCC) listed the 

flatwoods salamander (which includes 

the frosted flatwoods salamander) as a 

species of special concern (FFWCC 

2007, p. 2) and prohibited direct take 

except through permit. As part of the 

listing process, a Statewide management 

plan was developed for the salamander 

in Florida (FFWCC 2001, p. 1-60). This 

plan sets an ambitious conservation goal 

of maintaining at least 129 selfsustaining populations of flatwoods 

salamanders (which includes both 

frosted and reticulated flatwoods 

salamander species) in Florida. The 

plan also outlines a monitoring plan for 

population status assessment, an 

implementation strategy for the 

management of populations, and areas 

for future research. However, Florida 

regulations offer no protection against 

the most significant threat to the frosted 

flatwoods salamander—loss of habitat. 

In summary, although existing 

regulatory mechanisms provide little 

direct protection of frosted flatwoods 

salamanders (beyond the protections 

afforded by the Act), they do provide a 

degree of protection for the remaining 

occupied habitat, primarily on public 

lands. The record of management on 

public lands since the original listing of 

the flatwoods salamander in 1999 

indicates that public agencies are 

actively pursuing longleaf pine 

ecosystem management programs that 

benefit the frosted flatwoods 

salamander. Frosted flatwoods 

salamander breeding sites on the three 

private land sites may, in some cases, 

come under the jurisdiction of the 

Corps, but most likely they are provided 

little regulatory protection. We have 

determined that the threat of inadequate 

existing regulatory mechanisms is 

primarily an ongoing threat of moderate 

magnitude. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Metapopulations, which are 

neighboring local populations close 

enough to one another that dispersing 

individuals could be exchanged (gene 

flow) at least once per generation, are 

important to the long-term survival of 

temporary pond breeding amphibians. 

In these species, such as the frosted 

flatwoods salamander, breeding ponds 

may differ in the frequency of their 

ability to support amphibian 

reproduction. As a result, extirpation 

and colonization rates can be a function 

of pond spatial arrangement as well as 

local habitat quality (Marsh and 

Trenham 2001, p. 41). Of the 26 known 

frosted flatwoods salamanders 

populations, 16 (62 percent) are 

supported by more than one breeding 

pond and may be considered 

metapopulations. However, for 12 

percent (3 out of 26) of the known 

frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations, any one of the many 

threats that may render a breeding pond 

unsuitable could cause the extirpation 

of the affected population. 

Invasive plant species, such as 

cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), 

threaten to further degrade existing 

flatwoods habitat. Cogongrass, a 

perennial grass native to Southeast Asia, 

is one of the leading threats to the 

ecological integrity of native herbaceous 

flora, including that in the longleaf pine 

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

Cogongrass can displace most of the 

existing vegetation except large trees. 

Especially threatening to the frosted 

flatwoods salamander is the ability of 

cogongrass to outcompete wiregrass, a 

key vegetative component of flatwoods 

salamander habitat. Changing the 

species composition in this way can 

alter the soil chemistry, nutrient 

cycling, and hydrology of an infested 

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

flatwoods salamander habitat 

management plans will need to address 

threats posed by cogongrass and other 

invasive plant species and include 

strategies to control them. An integrated 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 54131 

management approach to controlling 

cogongrass is outlined in Jose et al. 

(2002, p. 42). 

Pesticides (including herbicides) may 

pose a threat to amphibians, such as the 

frosted flatwoods salamander, whose 

permeable eggs and skin readily absorb 

substances from the surrounding aquatic 

or terrestrial environment (Duellman 

and Trueb 1986, pp. 199-200). Negative 

effects that commonly used pesticides 

and herbicides may have on amphibians 

include delayed metamorphosis, 

paralysis, reduced growth rate, and 

mortality (Bishop 1992, pp. 67-69). 

Herbicides used near frosted flatwoods 

salamander breeding ponds may alter 

the density and species composition of 

vegetation surrounding a breeding site 

and reduce the number of potential sites 

for egg deposition, larval development, 

or shelter for migrating salamanders. 

Aerial spraying of herbicides over 

outdoor pond mesocosms (semi-field 

approximations of ponds) has been 

shown to reduce zooplankton diversity, 

a food source for larval frosted 

flatwoods salamanders, and cause very 

high (68 to 100 percent) mortality in 

tadpoles and juvenile frogs (Relyea 

2005, pp. 618-626). The potential for 

negative effects from pesticide and 

herbicide use in areas adjacent to 

breeding ponds would be reduced by 

avoiding aerial spraying (Tatum 2004, p. 

1047). 

Studies of other ambystomatid species 

have demonstrated a decline in larval 

survival in the presence of predatory 

fish, as mentioned above under Factor 

C. One of the potential reasons for this 

decline may be the negative effect that 

these fish have on the invertebrate prey 

of salamander larvae. The invertebrates 

found by Whiles et al. (2004, p. 212) in 

a study of larval frosted and reticulated 

flatwoods salamander gut contents are 

typical of freshwater habitats in the 

Southeast that do not contain predatory 

fish on a regular basis. The presence of 

predatory fish has a marked effect on 

invertebrate communities and alters 

prey availability for larval salamanders 

with the potential for negative effects on 

larval fitness and survival (Semlitsch 

1987, p. 481). Wherever connections 

have been created between permanent 

water and frosted flatwoods salamander 

ponds, through installation of 

firebreaks, ditches, and so on, this threat 

from predatory fish exists. 

Studies of frosted flatwoods 

salamander populations since the 

original species classification of 

flatwoods salamander was listed (64 FR 

15691; April 1, 1999) have been limited 

due to drought. Data on the numbers of 

adults within existing populations does 

not exist. However, given the low 

number of individuals encountered 

even when breeding is verified, 

populations are likely to be very small 

at any given breeding site. Small 

populations are at increased threat of 

extirpation from natural processes 

(genetic isolation, inbreeding 

depression, and drought), as well as the 

manmade threats described above. 

In summary, a variety of natural or 

manmade factors historically or 

currently threaten, or have the potential 

to threaten, the frosted flatwoods 

salamander. The loss of metapopulation 

structure in the distribution of frosted 

flatwoods salamander populations was a 

range-wide threat that caused historic 

losses of this species. It continues to be 

a current threat for 38 percent of the 

remaining frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations. Fire suppression and 

inadequate habitat management 

continue to cause the degradation of 

occupied sites, primarily on private 

land. Invasive plant species probably 

did not have much of a historic impact 

on salamander populations, but they are 

a range-wide potential threat, especially 

as they become more widespread and 

difficult to control. Rangewide, low 

population densities have been a 

historic threat and continue to be a 

threat for most frosted flatwoods 

salamander populations, particularly 

due to past and current drought 

conditions, habitat loss, population 

fragmentation, and periodic 

reproductive failures that occur 

naturally in pond-breeding amphibians. 

The impact that competing predators 

may have on the salamanders’ prey 

base, and the threat of pesticide and 

herbicide use, are less clear as historic 

threats but remain potential localized 

threats for the species. Therefore, while 

we have determined that other natural 

and manmade factors, such as invasive 

species, pesticides, and competition for 

the species’ prey base, may threaten the 

frosted flatwoods salamander, the 

severity and magnitude of these threats 

are not currently known. Acting in 

combination with threats listed above 

under Factors A through D, the threats 

under Factor E could increase the 

severity of the other threats. 

Determination 

We have carefully assessed the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available regarding the past, present, 

and future threats to the frosted 

flatwoods salamander. In summary, the 

most significant historical threat to the 

frosted flatwoods salamander, as listed 

in Factor A (above), is loss of the 

majority of its habitat. A variety of 

localized threats (described under 

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

potential to impact the remaining 

frosted flatwoods salamander habitat. 

These include alterations in the 

hydrology of existing wetland breeding 

sites, incompatible forest management, 

ORV use, fire suppression, drought, and 

disease, but the severity and magnitude 

of these threats are not currently known. 

As described in Factor E above, small 

populations are at increased threat of 

extirpation from natural processes 

(genetic isolation, inbreeding 

depression, and drought), as well as the 

manmade threats listed above. Finally, 

there are potential localized threats from 

fire ants, pesticides, and invasive plants 

for which the extent of impact is yet 

undeterminable, but that we believe are 

legitimate threats due to both their 

impact on surrogate species and their 

prevalence in the types of habitats used 

by this species. 

Only 26 frosted flatwoods salamander 

populations are known. Ten (38 

percent) of these populations are 

supported by only one breeding site. A 

population with only one breeding site 

has a tenuous future just given 

randomly varying environmental factors 

without considering the additional 

threats of habitat destruction and 

degradation that further threaten these 

populations. 

As noted previously, we are currently 

experiencing drought conditions. Palis 

et al. (2006, pp. 5-6) studied a frosted 

flatwoods population in Florida during 

a drought from 1999-2002. This study 

documented 3 consecutive years of 

reproductive failure and a steady 

declining adult immigration to the site 

for breeding as the drought progressed. 

Catastrophic reproductive failure 

occurs even in healthy populations of 

pond-breeding amphibians. When it 

does occur, the modeling efforts of 

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

each year of reproductive failure raises 

the threshold of survival required to 

achieve persistence and imposes the 

possibility of extirpation even under 

otherwise favorable environmental 

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

reminds us that particularly with small 

populations or low population growth 

rates (as exists with the frosted 

flatwoods salamander) effects of 

reproductive failure are made worse by 

demographic stochasticity. Even in 

populations with multiple breeding 

ponds, amphibian populations may be 

unable to recolonize areas after local 

extirpations due to their physiological 

constraints, relatively low mobility, and 

site fidelity (Blaustein et al. 1994, pp. 

60, 67-68). 

For frosted flatwoods salamander, 38 

percent of populations have only one 

breeding pond. If the habitat at that site 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
54132 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

is destroyed, recolonization would be 

impossible and the population 

supported by that breeding pond would 

be extirpated. 

Habitat loss on private lands is an 

imminent threat that is compounded by 

a variety of other factors. Fire 

suppression on private lands occupied 

by the frosted flatwoods salamander 

represents one of the biggest threats to 

the species’ habitat and the continued 

existence of the species on these sites. 

However, 62 percent of frosted 

flatwoods salamander populations have 

an improved chance of surviving 

demographic and environmental 

stochasticity given that the distribution 

of breeding sites occurs within an adult 

salamander’s dispersal distance. 

We believe that, when combining the 

effects of historical, current, and 

projected habitat loss and degradation, 

historical and ongoing drought, and the 

exacerbating effects of disease, 

predation, small population size, and 

isolation, the frosted flatwoods 

salamander continues to be likely to 

become an endangered species 

throughout all of its range within the 

foreseeable future. We believe these 

threats, particularly the threats to 

populations resulting from habitat 

degradation and fragmentation, small 

population size, and drought, are 

current and are projected to continue 

into the future. We have determined 

that these threats are operating on the 

species and its habitat with a moderate 

degree of magnitude throughout most of 

its range and with a moderate degree of 

severity, as discussed above. 

Based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we have 

determined that the preferred action is 

for the frosted flatwoods salamander to 

retain its status as a threatened species 

under the Act. Without the protection of 

the Act, significant management of 

threats would likely occur on public 

lands; however, there is still substantial 

risk of loss of ponds to drought and 

disease and, on private lands, a variety 

of potential threats (for example, 

introduction of fish, predation, 

pesticides), and development. As 

discussed previously, declines resulting 

from drought can occur within only a 

few years. In the case of the frosted 

flatwoods salamander, 38 percent of 

populations have only one breeding 

pond. If the habitat at that site is 

destroyed, recolonization would be 

impossible and the population 

supported by that breeding pond would 

be extirpated. This could occur within 

a few years given recurring drought 

conditions and existing threats. While 

not in immediate danger of extinction, 

the frosted flatwoods salamander is 

likely to become an endangered species 

in the foreseeable future throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range if the 

present trends that negatively affect the 

species, and its limited and restricted 

habitat, continue. Furthermore, because 

these threats to the species are of 

comparable magnitude and severity 

across all of the species’ range, we have 

determined that an analysis of whether 

a specific portion of the range might 

require a different listing status is not 

warranted at this time. 

Available Conservation Measures 

For additional information on 

available conservation measures, please 

refer to the proposed rule published in 

the Federal Register on August 13, 2008 

(73 FR 47258). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this document is available upon 

request from the Field Supervisor Ray 

Aycock, Mississippi Field Office (see 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Author(s) 

The primary authors of this package 

are the staff of the Mississippi Field 

Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Dated: September 5, 2008. 

Lyle Laverty, 

Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and 

Parks. 

[FR Doc. E8–21878 Filed 9–17–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310-55-S 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 600 

[Docket No. 0808041047–81182–01] 

RIN 0648–AW62 

Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; 

Scientific and Statistical Committees; 

Peer Review; National Standard 

Guidelines 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that it is 

considering, and is seeking public 

comment on proposed rulemaking to 

revise National Standard 2 (NS2) 

guidelines regarding use of best 

scientific information available, in light 

of reauthorization of the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens 

Act). NMFS is considering modifying 

the language describing the content and 

purpose of the Stock Assessment and 

Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) Report or 

related documents, and adding language 

regarding peer review processes, the 

role of the scientific and statistical 

committees (SSCs) of the Regional 

Fishery Management Councils 

(Councils), and the relationship between 

peer reviews and SSCs. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before 5 p.m., local time, 

December 17, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by 0648–AW62, by any one of 

the following methods: 

• Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

• Fax: Attn: William Michaels 301– 

713–1875. 

• Mail: William Michaels, NOAA 

Fisheries Service, Office of Science and 

Technology, 1315 East-West Highway, 

F/ST4, Silver Spring, MD 20910. 

Instructions: All comments received 

are a part of the public record and will 

generally be posted to http:// 

www.regulations.gov without change. 

All Personal Identifying Information (for 

example, name, address, etc.) 

voluntarily submitted by the commenter 

may be publicly accessible. Do not 

submit Confidential Business 

Information or otherwise sensitive or 

protected information. 

NMFS will accept anonymous 

comments. Attachments to electronic 

comments will be accepted in Microsoft 

Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe 

PDF file formats only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill 

Michaels, 301–713–2363 x136. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

January 12, 2007, the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA) 

was signed into law. The MSRA 

amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens 

Act included provisions to improve the 

use of science in decision-making, 

provide for a stronger role for Councils’ 

SSCs and enhance peer review 

processes. 

Currently, the NS2 guidelines address 

the use of best scientific information 

available to support fishery management 

actions, prescribe the content and 

purpose of SAFE reports or similar 


dwashington3 on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS