# 72 FR 5856: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Flatwoods Salamander

> Federal · Regulations · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_07-470

## Section

- **Citation:** 72 FR 5856
- **Heading:** Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Flatwoods Salamander
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Regulations
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Federal Register / Vol. 72 / 72 FR 5856

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 RIN 1018-AU85 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Flatwoods Salamander AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION:
Proposed rule.

SUMMARY:
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to designate critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander ( Ambystoma cingulatum ) pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). In total, approximately 31,428 acres (ac) (12,719 hectares (ha)) fall within the boundaries of the proposed critical habitat designation. The proposed critical habitat is located in Baker, Calhoun, Franklin, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Liberty, Santa Rosa, Wakulla, Walton, and Washington Counties in Florida; Baker and Miller Counties in Georgia; and Berkeley, Charleston, and Jasper Counties in South Carolina.

DATES:
We will accept comments from all interested parties until April 9, 2007. We must receive requests for public hearings, in writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by March 26, 2007.

ADDRESSES:
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
1. You may send by U.S. mail or hand-deliver written comments and information to Ray Aycock, Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office, 6578 Dogwood View Pkwy, Jackson, MS 39213.
2. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to linda_laclaire@fws.gov. Please see the Public Comments Solicited section below for file format and other information about electronic filing.
3. You may fax your comments to 601/965-4340.
4. You may go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments
Pkwy, Jackson, MS 39213.
2. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to linda_laclaire@fws.gov. Please see the Public Comments Solicited section below for file format and other information about electronic filing.
3. You may fax your comments to 601/965-4340.
4. You may go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in the preparation of this proposed rule, will be available for public inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office (address above).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ray Aycock, Field Supervisor, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office (address above) ( telephone: 601/965-4900; facsimile: 601/965-4340). Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339, 7 days a week and 24 hours a day.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments Solicited
We intend 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 particularly are sought concerning:
(1) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), including whether the benefit of designation will outweigh any threats to the species caused by designation;
y, industry, or any other interested party concerning this proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments particularly are sought concerning:
(1) The reasons any habitat should or should not be determined to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ), including whether the benefit of designation will outweigh any threats to the species caused by designation;
(2) Specific information on the amount and distribution of flatwoods salamander habitat, what areas should be included in the designations that were occupied at the time of listing that contain the features that are essential for the conservation of the species and why and what areas that were not occupied at the time of listing but are essential to the conservation of the species and why;
(3) Land use designations and current or planned activities in the subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat;
(4) Any foreseeable economic, national security, or other potential impacts resulting from the proposed designation and, in particular, any impacts on small entities;
(5) The adequacy of forest management plans and programs for Francis Marion, Osceola, and Apalachicola National Forests with respect to providing protection and conservation for the flatwoods salamander; and
(6) Whether our approach to designating critical habitat could be improved or modified in any way to provide for greater public participation and understanding, or to assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES section). Please submit Internet comments to linda_laclaire@fws.gov. Please include “Attn: flatwoods salamander” in your e-mail subject header and your name and return address in the body of your message
assist us in accommodating public concerns and comments.
If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods (see ADDRESSES section). Please submit Internet comments to linda_laclaire@fws.gov. Please include “Attn: flatwoods salamander” in your e-mail subject header and your name and return address in the body of your message. If you do not receive a confirmation from the system that we have received your Internet message, contact us directly by calling our Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office at phone number 601/965-4900.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to consider withholding this information, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be released. We will always make submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.
Role of Critical Habitat in Actual Practice of Administering and Implementing the Act
Attention to and protection of habitat is paramount to successful conservation actions. The role that designation of critical habitat plays in protecting habitat of listed species, however, is often misunderstood. As discussed in more detail below in the discussion of exclusions under the Act's section 4(b)(2), there are significant limitations on the regulatory effect of designation under Act's section 7(a)(2)
nd protection of habitat is paramount to successful conservation actions. The role that designation of critical habitat plays in protecting habitat of listed species, however, is often misunderstood. As discussed in more detail below in the discussion of exclusions under the Act's section 4(b)(2), there are significant limitations on the regulatory effect of designation under Act's section 7(a)(2). In brief, (1) designation provides additional protection to habitat only where there is a federal nexus; (2) the protection is relevant only when, in the absence of designation, destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat would in fact take place (in other words, other statutory or regulatory protections, policies, or other factors relevant to agency decision-making would not prevent the destruction or adverse modification); and (3) designation of critical habitat triggers the prohibition of destruction or adverse modification of that habitat, but it does not require specific actions to restore or improve habitat.
Currently, only 476 species, or 36 percent of the 1,311 listed species in the United States under the jurisdiction of the Service, have designated critical habitat. We address the habitat needs of all 1,311 listed species through conservation mechanisms such as listing, section 7 consultations, the section 4 recovery planning process, the section 9 protective prohibitions of unauthorized take, section 6 funding to the States, the section 10 incidental take permit process, and cooperative, nonregulatory efforts with private landowners. The Service believes that it is these measures may make the difference between extinction and survival for many species.
In considering exclusions of areas proposed for designation, we evaluated the benefits of designation in light of Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service , 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) (hereinafter Gifford Pinchot )
forts with private landowners. The Service believes that it is these measures may make the difference between extinction and survival for many species.
In considering exclusions of areas proposed for designation, we evaluated the benefits of designation in light of Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. United States Fish and Wildlife Service , 378 F. 3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) (hereinafter Gifford Pinchot ). In that case, the Ninth Circuit invalidated the Service's regulation defining “destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.” In response, on December 9, 2004, the Director issued guidance to be considered in making section 7 adverse modification determinations. This proposed critical habitat designation does not use the invalidated regulation in our consideration of the benefits of including areas. The Service will carefully manage future consultations that analyze impacts to designated critical habitat, particularly those that appear to be resulting in an adverse modification determination. Such consultations will be reviewed by the Regional Office prior to finalizing to ensure that an adequate analysis has been conducted that is informed by the Director's guidance.
On the other hand, to the extent that designation of critical habitat provides protection, that protection can come at significant social and economic cost. In addition, the mere administrative process of designation of critical habitat is expensive, time-consuming, and controversial. The current statutory framework of critical habitat, combined with past judicial interpretations of the statute, make critical habitat the subject of excessive litigation. As a result, critical habitat designations are driven by litigation and courts rather than biology, and made at a time and under a time frame that limits our ability to obtain and evaluate the scientific and other information required to make the designation most meaningful
bitat, combined with past judicial interpretations of the statute, make critical habitat the subject of excessive litigation. As a result, critical habitat designations are driven by litigation and courts rather than biology, and made at a time and under a time frame that limits our ability to obtain and evaluate the scientific and other information required to make the designation most meaningful.
In light of these circumstances, the Service believes that additional agency discretion would allow our focus to return to those actions that provide the greatest benefit to the species most in need of protection.
Procedural and Resource Difficulties in Designating Critical Habitat
We have been inundated with lawsuits for our failure to designate critical habitat, and we face a growing number of lawsuits challenging critical habitat determinations once they are made. These lawsuits have subjected the Service to an ever-increasing series of court orders and court-approved settlement agreements, compliance with which now consumes nearly the entire listing program budget. This leaves the Service with little ability to prioritize its activities to direct scarce listing resources to the listing program actions with the most biologically urgent species conservation needs.
The consequence of the critical habitat litigation activity is that limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on existing proposals are all significantly delayed
ity is that limited listing funds are used to defend active lawsuits, to respond to Notices of Intent (NOIs) to sue relative to critical habitat, and to comply with the growing number of adverse court orders. As a result, listing petition responses, the Service's own proposals to list critically imperiled species, and final listing determinations on existing proposals are all significantly delayed.
The accelerated schedules of court-ordered designations have left the Service with limited ability to provide for public participation or to ensure a defect-free rulemaking process before making decisions on listing and critical habitat proposals, due to the risks associated with noncompliance with judicially imposed deadlines. This in turn fosters a second round of litigation in which those who fear adverse impacts from critical habitat designations challenge those designations. The cycle of litigation appears endless, and is very expensive, thus diverting resources from conservation actions that may provide relatively more benefit to imperiled species.
The costs resulting from the designation include legal costs, the cost of preparation and publication of the designation, the analysis of the economic effects and the cost of requesting and responding to public comment, and in some cases the costs of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq. ). These costs, which are not required for many other conservation actions, directly reduce the funds available for direct and tangible conservation actions.
Background
It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. 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).
Previous Federal Actions
The flatwoods salamander ( Ambystoma cingulatum ) was listed as threatened on April 1, 1999 (64 FR 15691)
r intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. 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).
Previous Federal Actions
The flatwoods salamander ( Ambystoma cingulatum ) was listed as threatened on April 1, 1999 (64 FR 15691). At that time, we found that designation of critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander was not prudent because such designation would not be beneficial and may increase threats to the species. On April 1, 2005, Center for Biological Diversity, Wild South, and Florida Biodiversity Project filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of the Interior alleging failure to designate critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander. In a court-approved settlement agreement, we agreed to reevaluate the need for critical habitat for the species and if prudent submit a proposed designation of critical habitat to the Federal Register by January 30, 2007.
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 considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary
pied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated with scientific resources management such as research, census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency. Section 7 requires consultation on Federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such designation does not allow government or public access to private lands. Section 7 is a purely protective measure and does not require implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat within the area occupied by the species must first have features that are essential to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b))
the habitat within the area occupied by the species must first have features that are essential to the conservation of the species. Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best scientific data available, habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the species (i.e., areas on which are found the primary constituent elements, as defined at 50 CFR 424.12(b)).
Habitat occupied at the time of listing may be included in critical habitat only if the essential features thereon may require special management or protection. Thus, we do not include areas where existing management is sufficient to conserve the species. (As discussed below, such areas may also be excluded from critical habitat pursuant to section 4(b)(2)). Accordingly, when the best available scientific data do not demonstrate that the conservation needs of the species require additional areas, we will not designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing. An area currently occupied by the species but not known to have been occupied at the time of listing will likely, but not always, be essential to the conservation of the species and, therefore, typically included in the critical habitat designation.
The Service's Policy on Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271), and Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the Service provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best scientific data available. They require Service biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat
Service provide criteria, establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that decisions made by the Service represent the best scientific data available. They require Service biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical habitat. When determining which areas are critical habitat, a primary source of information is generally the listing package for the species. Additional information sources include the recovery plan for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and studies, biological assessments, or other unpublished materials and expert opinion or personal knowledge. All information is used in accordance with the provisions of Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658) and the associated Information Quality Guidelines issued by the Service.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on the basis of the best scientific data available. Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to another over time. Furthermore, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may not include all of the habitat areas that may eventually be determined to be necessary for the recovery of the species. For these reasons, critical habitat designations do not signal that habitat outside the designation is unimportant or may not be required for recovery.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information at the time of the action
nimportant or may not be required for recovery.
Areas that support populations, but are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act and to the regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy standard, as determined on the basis of the best available information at the time of the action. Federally funded or permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some cases. Similarly, critical habitat designations made on the basis of the best available information at the time of designation will not control the direction and substance of future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans, or other species conservation planning efforts if new information available to these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Methods
As required by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we use the best scientific data available in determining areas that contain the features that are essential to the conservation of the flatwoods salamander. This includes information from the proposed listing rule (62 FR 65787), final listing rule (64 FR 15691), site visits, soil and species map coverages, and data compiled in the Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina Natural Heritage databases. We do not propose any areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by the species.
We also reviewed the available information pertaining to historical and current distribution, ecology, life history, and habitat requirements of the flatwoods salamander
site visits, soil and species map coverages, and data compiled in the Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina Natural Heritage databases. We do not propose any areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by the species.
We also reviewed the available information pertaining to historical and current distribution, ecology, life history, and habitat requirements of the flatwoods salamander. This material included data in reports submitted by biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) recovery permits; research published in peer-reviewed scientific publications; museum records; technical reports and unpublished field observations by Service, State and other experienced biologists; additional notes and communications with qualified biologists or experts; and regional Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages.
Primary Constituent Elements
In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) of the Act and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas to propose as critical habitat, we consider those physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of the species (PCEs), and within areas occupied by the species at the time of listing, those PCES that may require special management considerations and protection. These include, but are not limited to, space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
The specific PCEs required for the flatwoods salamander are derived from the biological needs of the flatwoods salamander as described below and in the final listing rule (64 FR 15691).
Space for Individual and Population Growth and Normal Behavior
The flatwoods salamander is a terrestrial species of the longleaf pine ecosystem
historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
The specific PCEs required for the flatwoods salamander are derived from the biological needs of the flatwoods salamander as described below and in the final listing rule (64 FR 15691).
Space for Individual and Population Growth and Normal Behavior
The flatwoods salamander is a terrestrial species of the longleaf pine ecosystem. Flatwoods salamanders spend most of their lives underground, and occur in forested habitat consisting of fire-maintained, open-canopied, flatwoods and savannas dominated by longleaf pine ( Pinus palustris ), with naturally-occurring slash pine ( P. ) in wetter areas. Historically, fire-tolerant longleaf pine dominated the uplands, whereas slash pine, being less fire-tolerant, was confined principally to wetlands, wetland edges, and the wetter portions of pine flatwoods. Means et al. (1996, pp. 434-435) summarized the natural distribution of slash pine in reference to the flatwoods salamander and concluded that natural slash pine habitats constituted only a minor fraction of the species' upland habitat. Much of the original flatwoods habitat has been converted to pine (often slash pine) plantations and become a closed-canopy forest unsuitable as habitat for the flatwoods salamander. Nevertheless, flatwoods salamanders do occur on some slash and loblolly pine ( P. taeda ) plantation sites. The extent of habitat degradation has been variable among pine plantations. On some plantations, the original hydrology, ground cover, and soil structure have been less severely altered, and these are the areas where remnant flatwoods salamander populations still occur.
Pine flatwoods and savannas are typically characterized by low, flat topography, and relatively poorly-drained, acidic, sandy soil that becomes seasonally saturated. In the past, this ecosystem was characterized by open pine woodlands maintained by frequent fires
nd soil structure have been less severely altered, and these are the areas where remnant flatwoods salamander populations still occur.
Pine flatwoods and savannas are typically characterized by low, flat topography, and relatively poorly-drained, acidic, sandy soil that becomes seasonally saturated. In the past, this ecosystem was characterized by open pine woodlands maintained by frequent fires. Naturally ignited by lightning during spring and early summer, these flatwoods historically burned at intervals ranging from 1 to 4 years (discussion in Clewell 1989, p. 226). In some areas, such as southwest Georgia, the topography of pine flatwoods can vary from nearly flat to gently-rolling hills. The groundcover of the pine flatwoods/savanna ecosystem is typically dominated by wiregrass ( Aristida stricta [= A. beyrichiana ] Kesler et al. 2003, p. 9) in the Gulf Coastal Plain, which is often joined or replaced by dropseed ( Sporobolus spp.) in the Atlantic Coastal Plain. Many other herbaceous plants are found in the groundcover and plant diversity is usually very high.
During the breeding season, adult flatwoods salamanders leave their subterranean retreats and migrate to breeding sites during rains associated with passing cold fronts. Throughout their range, the salamanders breed at ephemeral (seasonally-flooded) isolated ponds (not connected to other water bodies) embedded within the mesic (moderate moisture) to intermediate-mesic flatwoods/savanna communities occupied by post-larval and adult salamanders (Palis and Means 2005, pp. 608-609. There are some variations in vegetation, geology, and soils among geographic areas within the range of the salamander (most notably, differences between the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coastal Plain communities); however, basic characteristics are fairly similar throughout
intermediate-mesic flatwoods/savanna communities occupied by post-larval and adult salamanders (Palis and Means 2005, pp. 608-609. There are some variations in vegetation, geology, and soils among geographic areas within the range of the salamander (most notably, differences between the Gulf Coast and Atlantic Coastal Plain communities); however, basic characteristics are fairly similar throughout. Both forested uplands and isolated wetlands (See further discussion of isolated wetlands in section “Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring,” below) are needed to provide space for individual and population growth and normal behavior.
The distance between the wetland breeding and upland terrestrial habitats of post-larval and adult salamanders can vary considerably. According to Ashton (1992), flatwoods salamanders have been documented up to 5,576 ft (1,700 m) from breeding ponds. In the final listing rule, however, the Service used an estimate of 1,476 feet (ft) (450 meters (m)) as the radius of a flatwoods salamander's principal activity area around a breeding pond based on research summarized in Semlitsch (1998, pp. 1115-1117) on this species and other species in its genus (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999, p. 15697).
Food, Water, Air, Light, or Other Nutritional or Physiological Requirements
It is assumed that flatwoods salamanders eat small invertebrates that share their fossorial (underground) habitat. Records exist of earthworms that have been found in the stomachs of dissected adults (Goin 1950, p. 314). Larval flatwoods salmanders most likely prey on a variety of aquatic invertebrates and perhaps small vertebrates such as other amphibian larvae (Palis and Means 2005, p. 608). Data from a recent study of larval food habits found that freshwater crustaceans dominated stomach contents of preserved, wild-caught individuals from Florida and South Carolina (Whiles et al. 2004, p. 208)
in 1950, p. 314). Larval flatwoods salmanders most likely prey on a variety of aquatic invertebrates and perhaps small vertebrates such as other amphibian larvae (Palis and Means 2005, p. 608). Data from a recent study of larval food habits found that freshwater crustaceans dominated stomach contents of preserved, wild-caught individuals from Florida and South Carolina (Whiles et al. 2004, p. 208). This likely indicates a preference for freshwater crustaceans, or perhaps is an indication that these invertebrates are the most abundant or most easily captured prey in breeding ponds.
Within the pine uplands, a diverse and abundant herbaceous layer consisting of native species is important to maintain the prey base for adult flatwoods salamanders. Wetland water quality is important to maintain the aquatic invertebrate fauna eaten by larval salamanders. An unpolluted wetland with water free of sediment, pesticides, herbicides, and the chemicals associated with road runoff, is important to maintain the aquatic invertebrate fauna eaten by larval salamanders.
Cover or Shelter
At wetland sites, developing larval flatwoods salamanders hide in submerged herbaceous vegetation during the day (Palis and Means 2005, p. 608) as protection from predators. Thus, an abundant herbaceous community in these ponds is important for cover.
Generally, flatwoods salamander breeding pond and upland habitats are separated by an ecotone (area of transitional habitat) through which salamanders must move during pre- and post-breeding events (Palis 1997, p. 58). The graminaceous (grass-like) ecotone represents a distinct habitat type and studies of migratory success in salamanders have demonstrated its importance to population survival (Rothermel 2004, pp. 1544-1545).
Post-larval and adult flatwoods salamanders occupy upland flatwoods sites where they live underground in crayfish burrows, root channels, or burrows of their own making (Goin 1950, p. 311; Neill 1951, p. 765; Mount 1975, pp. 98-99; Ashton and Ashton 2005, pp
pe and studies of migratory success in salamanders have demonstrated its importance to population survival (Rothermel 2004, pp. 1544-1545).
Post-larval and adult flatwoods salamanders occupy upland flatwoods sites where they live underground in crayfish burrows, root channels, or burrows of their own making (Goin 1950, p. 311; Neill 1951, p. 765; Mount 1975, pp. 98-99; Ashton and Ashton 2005, pp. 63, 65, 68-71). The occurrence of these below-ground habitats is dependent upon protection of the soil structure within flatwoods salamander terrestrial sites.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing of Offspring
Adult flatwoods salamanders move from the uplands to breed in ponds that are typically acidic, tannin-stained, isolated, ephemeral wetlands (marsh-like depressions) (Palis 1997, p. 53, 58; Safer 2001, p. 5, 12). Breeding occurs from late September to December when ponds flood due to rainy weather associated with cold fronts. If rainfall is insufficient to result in adequate pond flooding, breeding may not occur or, if larvae do develop, they may die before metamorphosis. Egg development from deposition to hatching occurs in approximately 2 weeks, but eggs do not hatch until they are inundated (Palis 1995, p. 352, 353). Larval salamanders usually metamorphose in March or April after an 11-to-18-week larval period (Palis 1995, p. 352). Ponds dry shortly thereafter. A cycle of filling and drying is essential for maintaining the appropriate habitat conditions of these wetlands.
The overstory within breeding ponds is typically dominated by pond cypress ( Taxodium ascendens [= T. distichum var. imbricarium; Lickey and Walker 2002, p. 131)], blackgum ( Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora ), and slash pine (Palis 1997, p. 58, 59). An open midstory is often present as well and Illex myrtifolia ) and other shrubs and small trees (Palis 1997, p. 58, 59). When they are dry, breeding ponds burn naturally due to periodic wildfires, especially during late spring and summer
ascendens [= T. distichum var. imbricarium; Lickey and Walker 2002, p. 131)], blackgum ( Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora ), and slash pine (Palis 1997, p. 58, 59). An open midstory is often present as well and Illex myrtifolia ) and other shrubs and small trees (Palis 1997, p. 58, 59). When they are dry, breeding ponds burn naturally due to periodic wildfires, especially during late spring and summer. Depending on canopy closure and midstory, the herbaceous groundcover of breeding sites can vary considerably (Palis 1997, p. 58, 59). However, flatwoods salamander larvae are typically found in those portions of breeding sites containing abundant herbaceous vegetation. The ground cover is dominated by graminaceous species. The floor of breeding sites generally consists of relatively firm mud with little or no peat. Burrows of crayfish (genus Procambarus, principally) are a common feature of flatwoods salamander breeding sites. Breeding sites are typically encircled by a bunchgrass (wiregrass or dropseed)—dominated graminaceous ecotone (see discussion of ecotone, above). Small fish, such as pygmy sunfishes ( Elassoma spp.), mosquitofish ( Gambusia holbrookii ), and banded sunfish ( Enneacanthus obesus ) may be present, but large predaceous species are absent (Palis 1997, p. 58, 60).
Primary Constituent Elements for the Flatwoods Salamander
Pursuant to our regulations, we are required to identify the known physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the flatwoods salamander (PCEs). Based on our current knowledge of the life history, biology, and ecology of the species and the requirements of the habitat to sustain the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined that the flatwoods salamander's PCEs are:
1. Breeding habitat. Small (generally <1 to 10 acres (ac) (<0.4 to 4.0 hectares (ha)), acidic, depressional standing bodies of freshwater (wetlands) that:
(a) are seasonally flooded by rainfall in late fall or early winter and dry in late spring or early summer;
habitat to sustain the essential life history functions of the species, we have determined that the flatwoods salamander's PCEs are:
1. Breeding habitat. Small (generally <1 to 10 acres (ac) (<0.4 to 4.0 hectares (ha)), acidic, depressional standing bodies of freshwater (wetlands) that:
(a) are seasonally flooded by rainfall in late fall or early winter and dry in late spring or early summer;
(b) are geographically isolated from other water bodies;
(c) occur within pine-flatwoods/savanna communities;
(d) are dominated by grasses and grass-like species in the ground layer and overstories of pond cypress, blackgum, and slash pine.
(e) have a relatively open canopy, necessary to maintain the herbaceous component which serves as cover for flatwoods salamander larvae and their aquatic invertebrate prey; and
(f) typically have a burrowing crayfish fauna, but, due to periodic drying, the breeding ponds typically lack large, predatory fish (e.g., Lepomis (sunfish), Micropterus (bass), Amia calva (bowfin)).
2. Non-breeding habitat. Upland pine flatwoods/savanna habitat that is open, mesic woodland maintained by frequent fires and that:
(a) is within 1,500 ft (457 m) of adjacent and accessible breeding ponds;
(b) contains crayfish burrows or other underground habitat that the flatwoods salamander depends upon for food, shelter, and protection from the elements and predation;
(c) has an organic hardpan in the soil profile, which inhibits subsurface water penetration and typically results in moist soils with water often at or near the surface under normal conditions; and
(d) often has wiregrasses as the dominant grasses in the abundant herbaceous ground cover, which supports the rich herbivorous invertebrates that serve as a food source for the flatwoods salamander.
3. Dispersal habitat. Upland habitat areas between non-breeding and breeding habitat that allows for salamander movement between such sites and that is characterized by:
der normal conditions; and
(d) often has wiregrasses as the dominant grasses in the abundant herbaceous ground cover, which supports the rich herbivorous invertebrates that serve as a food source for the flatwoods salamander.
3. Dispersal habitat. Upland habitat areas between non-breeding and breeding habitat that allows for salamander movement between such sites and that is characterized by:
(a) a mix of vegetation types representing a transition between wetland and upland vegetation (ecotone);
(b) an open canopy and abundant native herbaceous species; and
(c) moist soils as described in PCE 2, and underground structure, such as deep litter cover or burrows that provide shelter for salamanders during seasonal movements.
This proposed designation is designed for the conservation of those areas containing PCEs necessary to support the life history functions that were the basis for the proposal. Each of the areas proposed as critical habitat in this rule have been determined to contain all PCEs of the flatwoods salamander.
Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat
As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we used the best scientific data available in determining areas that contain the features that are essential to the conservation of the flatwoods salamander. This includes information from the proposed listing rule (62 FR 65787), final listing rule (64 FR 15691), site visits, soil and species map coverages, and data compiled in the Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina Natural Heritage databases. We propose to designate no areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by the species.
We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat requirements of this species
d listing rule (62 FR 65787), final listing rule (64 FR 15691), site visits, soil and species map coverages, and data compiled in the Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina Natural Heritage databases. We propose to designate no areas outside the geographical area presently occupied by the species.
We have also reviewed available information that pertains to the habitat requirements of this species. This material included data in reports submitted by biologists holding section 10(a)(1)(A) permits; research published in peer-reviewed scientific publications; museum records, technical reports and unpublished field observations by Service, State, and other experienced biologists; management plans written by State biologists; State grant reports; additional notes and communications with qualified biologists or experts; and regional GIS coverages.
In proposing to designate critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander, we selected areas occupied at the time of listing based on the best scientific data available that possess those physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the species that may require special management considerations or protection. In addition, we included two areas subsequently identified as occupied and essential to the conservation of the species. We found that the two newer (post-listing) occurrence records were in close proximity to areas already known to support the flatwoods salamander. We identified proposed critical habitat units that were occupied at the time of listing based on: (1) Presence of the defined PCEs; (2) density of flatwoods salamander occurrences; and (3) kind, amount, and quality of habitat associated with those occurrences. We identified proposed critical habitat units that were not occupied at the time of listing based on: (1) Density of flatwoods salamander occurrences; (2) kind, amount, and quality of habitat associated with those occurrences; and (3) a determination that these areas are essential to the conservation of the species
es; and (3) kind, amount, and quality of habitat associated with those occurrences. We identified proposed critical habitat units that were not occupied at the time of listing based on: (1) Density of flatwoods salamander occurrences; (2) kind, amount, and quality of habitat associated with those occurrences; and (3) a determination that these areas are essential to the conservation of the species.
According to Ashton (1992), flatwoods salamanders have been documented up to 5,576 ft (1,700 m) from breeding ponds. However, in the final listing rule, we determined that a radius of 1,476 ft (450 m) from the wetland edge would protect the majority of the salamander population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999, p. 15697). Thus, the radius of 450 m was used to delineate critical habitat boundaries around breeding ponds, and proposed critical habitat areas separated by over 450 m were considered separate units or subunits.
We considered the following criteria in the selection of areas that contain the essential features for the flatwoods salamander and focused on designating units: (1) Throughout the current geographic and ecological distribution of the species; (2) that retain or provide
We used the final listing rule to establish those areas occupied at the time of listing. All other areas proposed for critical habitat designation were based on occupancy data collected since listing. The currently occupied habitat of the flatwoods salamander is highly localized and fragmented. Due to several drought events, post-listing observations of salamanders have been made at breeding ponds in only a small portion of their occupied range and no population estimates are currently available. As with many rare species, especially pond-breeding amphibians with fossorial adult life stages, detection probabilities are low even in “normal” weather years (Bailey et al. 2004, p. 2463-2464). Flatwoods salamanders are particularly susceptible to drought, as breeding cannot occur if breeding ponds do not receive adequate rainfall
cupied range and no population estimates are currently available. As with many rare species, especially pond-breeding amphibians with fossorial adult life stages, detection probabilities are low even in “normal” weather years (Bailey et al. 2004, p. 2463-2464). Flatwoods salamanders are particularly susceptible to drought, as breeding cannot occur if breeding ponds do not receive adequate rainfall. We know that isolated populations, including those of the flatwoods salamander, are highly susceptible to stochastic events. Thus, we have determined that all but one of the areas occupied at the time of listing contain the features essential to the conservation of the species and that the two units occupied since the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species.
All occurrence records for sites currently known to be occupied, typically a breeding pond, were initially plotted on maps using ArcMap (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc.), a computer GIS program. The critical habitat units were then delineated by creating approximate areas for the units by screen-digitizing polygons (map units) using ArcMap. For ease of application in creating polygons, the original 1,476 ft (450 m) radius estimate used to generate the habitat occupied by a flatwoods salamander population was rounded up to 1,500 ft (457 m). Polygons were created by overlaying the flatwoods salamander occurrence locations, extant-at-time-of-listing and subsequent-to-listing, with radius buffers of 1,500 ft (457 m). The area circumscribed by a circle of this radius would be 162 ac (66 ha) and this area was used as a starting point to delineate the amount of wetland and upland habitat occupied by salamanders at each occurrence and containing the features essential to their conservation (PCEs).
Once the polygons were completed, they were overlaid on aerial photography. The aerial photography was analyzed to verify the occurrence of PCEs and their distribution within the polygons
a) and this area was used as a starting point to delineate the amount of wetland and upland habitat occupied by salamanders at each occurrence and containing the features essential to their conservation (PCEs).
Once the polygons were completed, they were overlaid on aerial photography. The aerial photography was analyzed to verify the occurrence of PCEs and their distribution within the polygons. Research on ambystomatid salamanders indicates that they need high terrestrial survival or immigration to persist (Taylor et al. 2005, p. 799). Thus, a flatwoods salamander population requires a sufficient amount of terrestrial habitat to ensure survival of adults in upland habitat, or immigration of juveniles to the population is needed from nearby breeding ponds. For this reason, if metapopulation structure was indicated by polygons which overlapped or were in immediate proximity to each other, polygons were combined to create areas containing multiple ponds connected to each other by upland habitat corridors. Additionally, we adjusted individual unit boundaries based on presence or absence of the PCEs.
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas such as buildings, paved areas, and other structures that lack PCEs for the flatwoods salamander. The scale of the maps prepared under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed areas. However, any such structures and the land under them inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions limited to these areas would not trigger section 7 consultation, unless they affect the species or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat
land under them inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, Federal actions limited to these areas would not trigger section 7 consultation, unless they affect the species or primary constituent elements in adjacent critical habitat.
We are proposing to designate critical habitat on lands that we have determined were occupied at the time of listing and that contain sufficient PCEs to support life history functions essential for the conservation of the species. In addition we are proposing to designate two areas that were not known to be occupied at the time of listing (they occur within the same geographical area and were discovered after 1999), and have been determined to be essential to the conservation of the species. All lands proposed for designation contain all PCEs and support multiple flatwoods salamander life processes.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act authorizes us to issue permits for the take of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. An incidental take permit application must be supported by a habitat conservation plan (HCP) that identifies conservation measures that the permittee agrees to implement to minimize and mitigate the impacts on the species by the requested incidental take. We often exclude non-Federal public lands and private lands that are covered by an existing operative HCP from designated critical habitat because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion as discussed in section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Currently, there are no existing or proposed HCPs for the flatwoods salamander, and as a result no exclusions are being proposed based on such an analysis
en exclude non-Federal public lands and private lands that are covered by an existing operative HCP from designated critical habitat because the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion as discussed in section 4(b)(2) of the Act. Currently, there are no existing or proposed HCPs for the flatwoods salamander, and as a result no exclusions are being proposed based on such an analysis.
Special Management Considerations or Protections
When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the areas determined to be occupied at the time of listing and contain the primary constituent elements that may require special management considerations or protections. Threats to those features that define the primary constituent elements for the flatwoods salamander include the direct and indirect impacts of land use conversions, primarily urban development and conversion to agriculture and pine plantations; stump removal and other soil-disturbing activities which destroy the below-ground structure within forest soils; fire suppression and low fire frequencies; wetland destruction and degradation; and stochastic effects of drought or floods. Specific details regarding these threats can be found in the proposed listing rule (62 FR 65787) and final listing rule (64 FR 15691). Due to one or more of the threats described above, and as discussed in more detail in the individual unit descriptions below, we find that all areas known to be occupied
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
We are proposing 16 flatwoods salamander critical habitat units, some of which are divided into subunits (for a total 45 units/subunits). The critical habitat units described below constitute our best current assessment of areas determined to be occupied at the time of listing containing the primary constituent elements that may require special management, and those additional areas that were not known to be occupied at the time of listing but were found to be essential to the conservation of the flatwoods salamander
nits/subunits). The critical habitat units described below constitute our best current assessment of areas determined to be occupied at the time of listing containing the primary constituent elements that may require special management, and those additional areas that were not known to be occupied at the time of listing but were found to be essential to the conservation of the flatwoods salamander.
Table 1.—Proposed Critical Habitat Units Occupied at the Time of Listing, Currently Occupied But Were Not Known To Be Occupied at the Time of Listing, or Unoccupied Unit Occupied at time of listing Currently occupied (but not known to be occupied at the time of listing) Unoccupied Florida Units FL-1, Subunit A X FL-1, Subunit B X FL-2, Subunit A X FL-2, Subunit B X FL-3, Subunit A X FL-3, Subunit B X FL-3, Subunit C X FL-4 X FL-5, Subunit A X FL-5, Subunit B X FL-6, Subunit A X FL-6, Subunit B X FL-6, Subunit B X FL-7, Subunit A X FL-7, Subunit B X FL-7, Subunit C X FL-8, Subunit A X FL-8, Subunit B X FL-8, Subunit C X FL-9, Subunit A X FL-9, Subunit B X FL-9, Subunit C X FL-9, Subunit D X FL-9, Subunit E X FL-9, Subunit F X FL-9, Subunit G X FL-9, Subunit H X FL-9, Subunit I X FL-9, Subunit J X FL-9, Subunit K X FL-10 X FL-11, Subunit A X FL-11, Subunit B X FL-11, Subunit C X FL-11, Subunit D X FL-11, Subunit E X FL-12, Subunit A X FL-12, Subunit B X Georgia Units GA-1, Subunit A X GA-1, Subunit B X GA-1, Subunit C X South Carolina Units SC-1 X SC-2 X SC-3 X SC-4 X The total area with features essential to the conservation of the flatwoods salamander and other areas essential for the species' conservation is 43,202 ac (17, 484 ha). Of this, 31,428 ac (12,719 ha) are being proposed for critical habitat. The total area not proposed for critical habitat is 11,774 ac (4,765 ha). This includes 9,867 ac (3,993 ha) of Department of Defense (DoD) lands with INRMPs exempted under section 4(a)(3), and approximately 1,907 ac of land within St
salamander and other areas essential for the species' conservation is 43,202 ac (17, 484 ha). Of this, 31,428 ac (12,719 ha) are being proposed for critical habitat. The total area not proposed for critical habitat is 11,774 ac (4,765 ha). This includes 9,867 ac (3,993 ha) of Department of Defense (DoD) lands with INRMPs exempted under section 4(a)(3), and approximately 1,907 ac of land within St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge which do not meet the definition of critical habitat under section 3(5)(A). Table 2 below provides the approximate area (ac/ha) determined to meet the definition of critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander and area (ac/ha) being exempted from or not included in the final critical habitat designation, by State.
Table 2.—Area (in ac/ha) Determined To Meet the Definition of Critical Habitat for the Flatwoods Salamander Containing the PCEs That May Require Special Management (Definitional Area) and Area Being Exempted From or Not Included in the Final Critical Habitat Designation (Area Not Included in Proposed Designation), by State State Definitional area (ac/ha) Area not included in proposed designation (ac/ha) Florida 29,689 ac (12,015 ha) 6,491 ac (2,627 ha). Georgia 609 ac (247 ha) 5,283 ac (2,138 ha). South Carolina 1,130 ac (457 ha) Totals 31,428 ac (12,719 ha) 11,774 ac (4,765 ha). The approximate area (ac/ha) encompassed within each proposed critical habitat unit is shown in Table 3.
Table 3.—Critical Habitat Units Proposed for the Flatwoods Salamander (Area Estimates Reflect All Land Within Critical Habitat Unit Boundaries) Unit Federal ac (ha) State ac (ha) Local ac (ha) Private ac (ha) Total ac (ha) Florida Units FL-1, Subunit A 180 ac (73 ha) 4 ac (2 ha) 6 ac (2 ha) 190 ac (77 ha). FL-1, Subunit B 133 ac (54 ha) 29 ac (12 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-2, Subunit A 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-2, Subunit B 32 ac (13 ha) 131 ac (53 ha) 163 ac (66 ha). FL-3, Subunit A 148 ac (60 ha) 148 ac (60 ha). FL-3, Subunit B 26 ac (11 ha) 42 ac (17 ha) 68 ac (28 ha)
cal ac (ha) Private ac (ha) Total ac (ha) Florida Units FL-1, Subunit A 180 ac (73 ha) 4 ac (2 ha) 6 ac (2 ha) 190 ac (77 ha). FL-1, Subunit B 133 ac (54 ha) 29 ac (12 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-2, Subunit A 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-2, Subunit B 32 ac (13 ha) 131 ac (53 ha) 163 ac (66 ha). FL-3, Subunit A 148 ac (60 ha) 148 ac (60 ha). FL-3, Subunit B 26 ac (11 ha) 42 ac (17 ha) 68 ac (28 ha). FL-3, Subunit C 13 ac (5 ha) 165 ac (67 ha) 178 ac (72 ha). FL-4 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-5, Subunit A 213 ac (86 ha) 213 ac (86 ha). FL-5, Subunit B 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-6, Subunit A 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-6, Subunit B 14 ac (6 ha) 148 ac (60 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-6, Subunit C 165 ac (67 ha) 165 ac (67 ha). FL-7, Subunit A 157 ac (64 ha) 157 ac (64 ha). FL-7, Subunit B 358 ac (145 ha) 358 ac (145 ha). FL-7, Subunit C 244 ac (99 ha) 244 ac (99 ha). FL-8, Subunit A 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-8, Subunit B 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-8, Subunit C 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-9, Subunit A 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-9, Subunit B 2,846 ac (1,152 ha) 511 ac (207 ha) 3,357 ac (1,359 ha). FL-9, Subunit C 1,084 ac (439 ha) 32 ac (13 ha) 1,116 ac (452 ha). FL-9, Subunit D 333 ac (135 ha) 333 ac (135 ha). FL-9, Subunit E 1739 ac (704 ha) 51 ac (21 ha) 1,790 ac (725 ha). FL-9, Subunit F 4,969 ac (2,011 ha) 231 ac (94 ha) 5,200 ac (2,105 ha). FL-9, Subunit G 258 ac (104 ha) 258 ac (104 ha). FL-9, Subunit H 8,176 ac (3,309 ha) 305 ac (123 ha) 8,481 ac (3,432 ha). FL-9, Subunit I 1,209 ac (489 ha) 46 ac (19 ha) 1,255 ac (508 ha). FL-9, Subunit J 312 ac (126 ha) 312 ac (126 ha). FL-9, Subunit K 802 ac (325 ha) 7 ac (3 ha) 809 ac (328 ha). FL-10 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-11, Subunit A 919 ac (372 ha) 919 ac (372 ha). FL-11, Subunit B 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-11, Subunit C 435 ac (176 ha) 435 ac (176 ha). FL-11, Subunit D 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-11, Subunit E 85 ac (34 ha) 78 ac (32 ha) 163 ac (66 ha)
-9, Subunit J 312 ac (126 ha) 312 ac (126 ha). FL-9, Subunit K 802 ac (325 ha) 7 ac (3 ha) 809 ac (328 ha). FL-10 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-11, Subunit A 919 ac (372 ha) 919 ac (372 ha). FL-11, Subunit B 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-11, Subunit C 435 ac (176 ha) 435 ac (176 ha). FL-11, Subunit D 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). FL-11, Subunit E 85 ac (34 ha) 78 ac (32 ha) 163 ac (66 ha). FL-12, Subunit A 1,109 ac (449 ha) 1,109 ac (449 ha). FL-12, Subunit B 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). Georgia Units GA-1, Subunit A 163 ac (66 ha) 163 ac (66 ha). GA-1, Subunit A 269 ac (109 ha) 269 ac (109 ha). GA-1, Subunit C 177 ac (72 ha) 177 ac (72 ha). South Carolina Units SC-1 163 ac (66 ha) 163 ac (66 ha). SC-2 183 ac (74 ha) 183 ac (74 ha). SC-3 622 ac (252 ha) 622 ac (252 ha). SC-4 162 ac (66 ha) 162 ac (66 ha). Totals 23,459 ac (9,494 ha) 1,138 ac (461 ha) 43 ac (17 ha) 6,788 ac (2,747 ha) 31,428 ac (12,719 ha). We present below brief descriptions of all units, and reasons why they meet the definition of critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander, including reasons why these PCEs require special management considerations or protections. Generally, the units are listed in order geographically west to east and south to north. The precise boundaries of each unit are described below as UTM coordinates (see Proposed Regulation Promulgation section).
Florida Critical Habitat Units (FL)
There are 12 Florida units, some of which are further subdivided into subunits (for a total of 38 units/subunits), comprising 29,689 ac (12,015 ha) across 11 counties of Florida. All units/subunits meet the definition of critical habitat based on the discussion above and all units contain all PCEs or for those units not occupied at listing, are essential to the conservation of the species
s (FL)
There are 12 Florida units, some of which are further subdivided into subunits (for a total of 38 units/subunits), comprising 29,689 ac (12,015 ha) across 11 counties of Florida. All units/subunits meet the definition of critical habitat based on the discussion above and all units contain all PCEs or for those units not occupied at listing, are essential to the conservation of the species. Of these, 36 units/subunits (28,122 ac (11,381 ha)) were known to be occupied at the time of listing and are currently occupied and two subunits (FL-9, Subunit I and FL-9, Subunit J), comprising 1,567 ac (634 ha), were not known to be occupied at the time of listing, but are currently occupied. The two subunits found to be occupied since listing are essential for the conservation of the species as they exist as part of a matrix of ponds within and adjacent to the Apalachicola National Forest, and their loss would negatively affect the long-term survival of this metapopulation, which is the largest existing metapopulation and is vital to the recovery of the species.
The western- and southern-most known occurrences of the flatwoods salamander are represented by populations in Florida.
Unit FL-1
Unit FL-1 is comprised of two subunits totaling 352 ac (143 ha) on Garcon Point in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Within FL-1, 180 acres (73 ha) consist of State land in the Garcon Point Water Management Area managed by the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFLWMD), 133 ac (54 ha) are on the Yellow River Marsh State Buffer Preserve (managed in part by the State of Florida/Department of Environmental Protection), 35 ac (14 ha) are in private ownership, and 4 ac (2 ha) are owned by the Santa Rosa Bay Bridge Authority.
Unit FL-1, Subunit A
Unit FL-1, Subunit A encompasses 190 ac (77 ha) on Garcon Point in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Garcon Point is a peninsula that extends into an embayment of the Gulf of Mexico near Pensacola, Florida
part by the State of Florida/Department of Environmental Protection), 35 ac (14 ha) are in private ownership, and 4 ac (2 ha) are owned by the Santa Rosa Bay Bridge Authority.
Unit FL-1, Subunit A
Unit FL-1, Subunit A encompasses 190 ac (77 ha) on Garcon Point in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Garcon Point is a peninsula that extends into an embayment of the Gulf of Mexico near Pensacola, Florida. Within this unit, 180 acres (73 ha) consist of State land in the Garcon Point Water Management Area managed by the Northwest Florida Water Management District (NWFLWMD), 6 ac (2 ha) are in private ownership, and 4 ac (2 ha) are owned by the Santa Rosa Bay Bridge Authority. This currently occupied unit is located adjacent to Hwy. 191 within an extensive wet prairie. Since the majority of this currently occupied unit is owned by NWFLWMD, it is likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development; however, threats remain to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. They include the potential for fire suppression and potential hydrologic changes resulting from the adjacent highway that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat. Ditches associated with highways can drain water from a site and result in ponds with shorter hydroperiods and drier terrestrial habitat. Alternatively, ditches can connect isolated wetlands with permanent water sites that increase the hydroperiod of ponds and facilitate the introduction of predaceous fish into breeding ponds. In addition, run-off from highways can introduce toxic chemicals into breeding sites.
Subunit B
Unit FL-1, Subunit B encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Within this unit, 133 ac (54 ha) are on the Yellow River Marsh State Buffer Preserve (managed in part by the State of Florida/Department of Environmental Protection) and 29 ac (12 ha) are on private land. This currently occupied unit is also on Garcon Point, northeast of Subunit A
cals into breeding sites.
Subunit B
Unit FL-1, Subunit B encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Within this unit, 133 ac (54 ha) are on the Yellow River Marsh State Buffer Preserve (managed in part by the State of Florida/Department of Environmental Protection) and 29 ac (12 ha) are on private land. This currently occupied unit is also on Garcon Point, northeast of Subunit A. This area is bisected by Hwy. 191 which crosses an extensive wet prairie. Areas of this unit owned by the State of Florida are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development; however, threats remain to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. They include the potential for fire suppression and potential hydrologic changes resulting from highways or other actions that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Unit FL-2
Unit FL-2 is comprised of two subunits encompassing 325 acres (132
Subunit A
Unit FL-2, Subunit A encompasses 162 acres (66 ha) on private land in Santa Rosa County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is located northeast of Milton, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soils structure, potential hydrological alterations to the habitat, and the potential for fire suppression.
Subunit B
Unit FL-2, Subunit B encompasses 163 ac (66 ha) in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Within this unit, there are 32 ac (13 ha) on State land managed by NWFLWMD and 131 acres (53 ha) on private land. This currently occupied unit is located south of Interstate 10 and near the Santa Rosa/Okaloosa County border. A small county road bisects the unit and a powerline crosses the eastern edge of the breeding pond
it FL-2, Subunit B encompasses 163 ac (66 ha) in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Within this unit, there are 32 ac (13 ha) on State land managed by NWFLWMD and 131 acres (53 ha) on private land. This currently occupied unit is located south of Interstate 10 and near the Santa Rosa/Okaloosa County border. A small county road bisects the unit and a powerline crosses the eastern edge of the breeding pond. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from the road and powerline that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Unit FL-3
Unit FL-3 is comprised of three subunits encompassing 394 acres (178 ha) in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Within FL-3, 355 ac (144 ha) are on private land, 26 ac (11 ha) are on property owned by the Santa Rosa County School Board, and 13 ac (5 ha) are owned by Santa Rosa County.
Subunit A
Unit FL-3, Subunit A encompasses 148 acres (60 ha) on private land in Santa Rosa County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is located near a rapidly developing section of Hwy. 98 between Navarre and Gulf Breeze, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soils structure, potential hydrologic changes resulting from the highway that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat, and potential habitat destruction due to urban and commercial development nearby.
Subunit B
Unit FL-3, Subunit B encompasses 68 ac (28 ha) in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Within this unit, 42 ac (17 ha) are on private land and 26 ac (11 ha) are on property owned by the Santa Rosa County School Board
e highway that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat, and potential habitat destruction due to urban and commercial development nearby.
Subunit B
Unit FL-3, Subunit B encompasses 68 ac (28 ha) in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Within this unit, 42 ac (17 ha) are on private land and 26 ac (11 ha) are on property owned by the Santa Rosa County School Board. This currently occupied unit is located near a rapidly developing section of Hwy. 98 between Navarre and Gulf Breeze, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soils structure, potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat, and future habitat destruction due to urban and commercial development.
Subunit C
Unit FL-3, Subunit C encompasses 178 ac (72 ha) in Santa Rosa County, Florida. Within this unit, 165 ac (67 ha) are on private land and 13 ac (5 ha) are owned by Santa Rosa County. This currently occupied unit is located near a rapidly developing section of Hwy. 98 east of Navarre, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soils structure, potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat, and future habitat destruction due to urban and commercial development.
Unit FL-4
Unit FL-4 encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on the Point Washington State Forest (managed by the State of Florida/Division of Forestry), Walton County, Florida
oils structure, potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat, and future habitat destruction due to urban and commercial development.
Unit FL-4
Unit FL-4 encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on the Point Washington State Forest (managed by the State of Florida/Division of Forestry), Walton County, Florida. Since the lands located in this unit are owned by the State of Florida, they are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development; however, threats remain to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. They include the potential for fire suppression and potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure.
Unit FL-5
Unit FL-5 is comprised of two subunits encompassing 375 ac (152 ha) in Walton and Washington Counties, Florida. Within FL-5, 213 ac (86 ha) on private land in Walton County, Florida, and 162 ac (66 ha) are located on Pine Log State Forest (managed by the state of Florida/Division of Forestry) in Washington County, Florida.
Subunit A
Unit FL-5, Subunit A encompasses 213 ac (86 ha) on private land in Walton County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is bisected by Hwy. 81 near Bruce, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit B
Unit FL-5, Subunit B encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on Pine Log State Forest (managed by the State of Florida/Division of Forestry) in Washington County, Florida
ions in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit B
Unit FL-5, Subunit B encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on Pine Log State Forest (managed by the State of Florida/Division of Forestry) in Washington County, Florida. Since the lands located in this unit are owned by the State of Florida, they are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development; however, threats remain to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. They include the potential for fire suppression and potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure.
Unit FL-6
Unit FL-6 is comprised of three subunits encompassing 489 ac (199 ha) on private land in Holmes and Washington Counties, Florida.
Subunit A
Unit FL-6, Subunit A encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on private land in Holmes County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is located just west of Hwy. 173 and approximately 5.5 mi (8.8 km) north of Bonifay, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential expansion of agriculture into the unit, potential detrimental alterations in forestry
Subunit B
Unit FL-6, Subunit B encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) in Washington County, Florida. Within this unit, 14 ac (6 ha) occur on the Pine Log State Forest (managed by the State of Florida/Division of Forestry) and 148 ac (60 ha) on private land. This currently occupied unit is located just south of Hwy. 170 and approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km) west of Vernon, Florida
ental alterations in forestry
Subunit B
Unit FL-6, Subunit B encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) in Washington County, Florida. Within this unit, 14 ac (6 ha) occur on the Pine Log State Forest (managed by the State of Florida/Division of Forestry) and 148 ac (60 ha) on private land. This currently occupied unit is located just south of Hwy. 170 and approximately 3.5 mi (5.6 km) west of Vernon, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit C
Unit FL-6, Subunit C encompasses 165 ac (67 ha) on private land in Washington County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is located just south of Hwy. 278 and approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) west of Vernon, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Unit FL-7
Unit FL-7 is comprised of three subunits encompassing 759 ac (308 ha) on private land in Jackson County, Florida.
Subunit A
Unit FL-7, Subunit A encompasses 157 ac (64 ha) on private land in western Jackson County, Florida near the Jackson/Washington County line. This currently occupied unit is located just south of Hwy. 90 and east of Hwy. 195 approximately 10 mi (16 km) west of Mariana, Florida
t FL-7 is comprised of three subunits encompassing 759 ac (308 ha) on private land in Jackson County, Florida.
Subunit A
Unit FL-7, Subunit A encompasses 157 ac (64 ha) on private land in western Jackson County, Florida near the Jackson/Washington County line. This currently occupied unit is located just south of Hwy. 90 and east of Hwy. 195 approximately 10 mi (16 km) west of Mariana, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential expansion of agriculture and residential development into the unit, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit B
Unit FL-7, Subunit B encompasses 358 ac (145 ha) on private land in Jackson County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is located just east of Hwy. 71 and south of Hwy. 90, between Old Spanish Trail and the CSX railroad. This locality is approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) southeast of Marianna, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential expansion of agriculture and residential development into the unit, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit C
Unit FL-7, Subunit C encompasses 244 acres (99 ha) on private land in Jackson County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is bisected by Hwy. 275, south of Interstate 10 near Wolf Slough
could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit C
Unit FL-7, Subunit C encompasses 244 acres (99 ha) on private land in Jackson County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is bisected by Hwy. 275, south of Interstate 10 near Wolf Slough. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential expansion of agriculture and residential development into the unit, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Unit FL-8
Unit FL-8 is comprised of three subunits encompassing 486 acres (198 ha) on private land in Calhoun County, Florida.
Subunit A
Unit FL-8, Subunit A encompasses 162 acres (66 ha) on private land in Calhoun County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is bisected by a county road in the vicinity of Broad Branch and is on the south side of Hwy. 392 (Youngstown Scotts Ferry Road) approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) west of Kinard, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit B
Unit FL-8, Subunit B encompasses 162 acres (66 ha) on private land in Calhoun County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is bisected by a county road and is approximately 5 mi (8 km) south of Hwy. 71 at Scotts Ferry, Florida
ructure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit B
Unit FL-8, Subunit B encompasses 162 acres (66 ha) on private land in Calhoun County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is bisected by a county road and is approximately 5 mi (8 km) south of Hwy. 71 at Scotts Ferry, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit C
Unit FL-8, Subunit C encompasses 162 acres (66 ha) on private land in Calhoun County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is bisected by a county road and is approximately 3 mi (4.8 km) south of Hwy. 71 at Scotts Ferry, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Unit FL-9
Unit FL-9 is comprised of 11 subunits encompassing 23,073 ac (9,338 ha) in Liberty and Franklin Counties, Florida. Most of the subunits are comprised primarily of U. S. Forest Service land lying within the Apalachicola National Forest.
Subunit A
Unit FL-9, Subunit A encompasses 162 acres (66 ha) on private land in Liberty County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is east of Hwy. 12 near Estiffanulga, Florida
sed of 11 subunits encompassing 23,073 ac (9,338 ha) in Liberty and Franklin Counties, Florida. Most of the subunits are comprised primarily of U. S. Forest Service land lying within the Apalachicola National Forest.
Subunit A
Unit FL-9, Subunit A encompasses 162 acres (66 ha) on private land in Liberty County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is east of Hwy. 12 near Estiffanulga, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire
Subunits B Through K
Subunits B through K are comprised primarily of U. S. Forest Service land lying within the Apalachicola National Forest in Liberty and Franklin counties, Florida. The combined acreage of these currently occupied units is 22,911 ac (9,272 ha). Within the units, 21,728 ac (8,793 ha) are in the Apalachicola National Forest, 46 ac (19 ha) are under State management, and 1,137 ac (460 ha) are in private ownership. Lands within these units owned by the U.S. Forest Service are likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development; however, threats remain to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. These subunits require special management to address threats including the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit B
Unit FL-9, Subunit B encompasses 3,357 ac (1, 359 ha). Within this unit, 2,846 ac (1,152 ha) are in the Apalachicola National Forest and 511 ac (207 ha) are in private ownership.
Subunit C
Unit FL-9, Subunit C encompasses 1,116 ac (452 ha). Within this unit, 1,084 ac (439 ha) are in the Apalachicola National Forest and 32 ac (13 ha) are in private ownership.
Subunit D
Unit FL-9, Subunit D encompasses 333 ac (135 ha)
asses 3,357 ac (1, 359 ha). Within this unit, 2,846 ac (1,152 ha) are in the Apalachicola National Forest and 511 ac (207 ha) are in private ownership.
Subunit C
Unit FL-9, Subunit C encompasses 1,116 ac (452 ha). Within this unit, 1,084 ac (439 ha) are in the Apalachicola National Forest and 32 ac (13 ha) are in private ownership.
Subunit D
Unit FL-9, Subunit D encompasses 333 ac (135 ha). All of this unit is within the Apalachicola National Forest.
Subunit E
Unit FL-9, Subunit E encompasses 1,790 ac (725 ha). Within this unit, 1,739 ac (704 ha) are in the Apalachicola National Forest and 51 ac (21 ha) are in private ownership.
Subunit F
Unit FL-9, Subunit F encompasses 5,200 ac (2,105 ha). Within this unit, 4,969 ac (2,011 ha) are in the Apalachicola National Forest and 231 ac (94 ha) are in private ownership.
Subunit G
Unit FL-9, Subunit G encompasses 258 ac (104 ha). All of this unit is within the Apalachicola National Forest.
Subunit H
Unit FL-9, Subunit H encompasses 8,481 ac (3,432 ha). Within this unit, 8,176 ac (3,309 ha) are in the Apalachicola National Forest and 305 ac (123 ha) are in private ownership.
Subunit I
Unit FL-9, Subunit I encompasses 1,255 ac (508 ha). Within this unit, 1,209 ac (489 ha) are in the Apalachicola National Forest and 46 ac (19 ha) are under State management. This unit was not known to be occupied at the time of listing, but is currently occupied. It is considered essential habitat for the flatwoods salamander. The currently occupied habitat of the flatwoods salamander is highly localized and fragmented. Flatwoods salamanders are particularly susceptible to drought, as breeding cannot occur if breeding ponds do not receive adequate rainfall. These small populations are at a high risk of extinction due to stochastic events such as drought, and human-induced threats such as urban/agricultural development and habitat degradation due to fire suppression and hydrological alterations
zed and fragmented. Flatwoods salamanders are particularly susceptible to drought, as breeding cannot occur if breeding ponds do not receive adequate rainfall. These small populations are at a high risk of extinction due to stochastic events such as drought, and human-induced threats such as urban/agricultural development and habitat degradation due to fire suppression and hydrological alterations. Thus, to ensure the persistence and conservation of this species throughout its current geographic and ecological distribution despite fluctuations in the status of subpopulations, we have determined that the two units known to be occupied since the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species.
Subunit J
Unit FL-9, Subunit J encompasses 312 ac (126 ha). All of this unit is within the Apalachicola National Forest. This unit was not known to be occupied at the time of listing, but is currently occupied. It is considered essential habitat for the flatwoods salamander. The currently occupied habitat of the flatwoods salamander is highly localized and fragmented. Flatwoods salamanders are particularly susceptible to drought, as breeding cannot occur if breeding ponds do not receive adequate rainfall. These small populations are at a high risk of extinction due to stochastic events such as drought, and human-induced threats such as urban/agricultural development and habitat degradation due to fire suppression and hydrological alterations. Thus, to ensure the persistence and conservation of this species throughout its current geographic and ecological distribution despite fluctuations in the status of subpopulations, we have determined that the two units known to be occupied since the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species.
Subunit K
Unit FL-9, Subunit K encompasses 809 ac (328 ha). Within this unit, 802 ac (325 ha) are in the Apalachicola National Forest and 7 ac (3 ha) are in private ownership
phic and ecological distribution despite fluctuations in the status of subpopulations, we have determined that the two units known to be occupied since the time of listing are essential to the conservation of the species.
Subunit K
Unit FL-9, Subunit K encompasses 809 ac (328 ha). Within this unit, 802 ac (325 ha) are in the Apalachicola National Forest and 7 ac (3 ha) are in private ownership.
Unit FL-10
Unit FL-10 encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on Tate's Hell State Forest (managed by the State of Florida's Division of Forestry) in Franklin County, Florida. Since this unit is owned by the State of Florida, it is likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development; however, threats remain to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. They include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Unit FL-11
Unit FL-11 is comprised of five subunits encompassing 1,841 ac (746 ha) in Wakulla and Jefferson Counties, Florida.
Subunit A
Unit FL-11, Subunit A encompasses 919 ac (372 ha) on private land/Flint Rock Wildlife Management Area (managed by private entity at this time) in Wakulla County, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit B
Unit FL-11, Subunit B encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on private land/Flint Rock Wildlife Management Area (managed by private entity at this time) in Wakulla County, Florida
es that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit B
Unit FL-11, Subunit B encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on private land/Flint Rock Wildlife Management Area (managed by private entity at this time) in Wakulla County, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of
Subunit C
Unit FL-11, Subunit C encompasses 435 ac (176 ha) on private land/Flint Rock Wildlife Management Area (managed by private entity at this time) in Wakulla and Jefferson counties, Florida. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit D
Unit FL-11, Subunit D encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on private land in Jefferson County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is approximately 1.7 mi (2.7 km) south of U.S. Hwy. 98 and approximately 1.3 mi (2.1 km) east of the Jefferson/Wakulla County line. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit E
Unit FL-11, Subunit E encompasses 163 ac (66 ha) in Jefferson County, Florida. Within this unit, 85 ac (34 ha) are in the Aucilla Wildlife Management Area managed by the State of Florida and 78 ac (32 ha) are in private ownership
cture, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit E
Unit FL-11, Subunit E encompasses 163 ac (66 ha) in Jefferson County, Florida. Within this unit, 85 ac (34 ha) are in the Aucilla Wildlife Management Area managed by the State of Florida and 78 ac (32 ha) are in private ownership. This currently occupied unit is bisected by State Hwy. 59, 5.3 mi (8.4 km) north of U.S. Hwy. 98 approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) east of the Jefferson/Wakulla County line. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Unit FL-12
Unit FL-12 is comprised of two subunits encompassing 1,109 ac (449 ha) on Osceola NF and 162 ac (66 ha) in private ownership both in Baker County, Florida.
Subunit A
Unit FL-12, Subunit A encompasses 1,109 ac (449 ha) on Osceola National Forest in Baker County, Florida. This currently occupied unit is located adjacent and south of Interstate 10 in the southwestern corner of Baker County between state highway 250 and 229. Since it is owned by the U.S. Forest Service, it is likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development; however, threats remain to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. They include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat
woods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. They include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit B
Unit FL-12, Subunit B encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on private land in Baker County, Florida. This currently occupied unit occurs approximately 2 mi (3.2 km) south of Hwy. 229 and 3.5 mi (5.6 km) north of Interstate 10. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Georgia Critical Habitat Units (GA)
There is one Georgia unit, divided into three subunits encompassing 609 ac (247 ha) across two counties of Georgia. All subunits meet the definition of critical habitat based on the discussion above and all units contain all PCEs. All subunits were known to be occupied at the time of listing and are currently occupied.
Unit GA-1
Unit GA-1 encompasses 609 ac (247 ha) in Miller and Baker Counties, Georgia. Within this unit 163 ac (66 ha) are located on Mayhaw Wildlife Management Area (managed by the State of Georgia) in Miller County, Georgia, 269 ac (109 ha) are located on private land adjacent to State Highway 200 in southwestern Baker County, Georgia, and 177 ac (72 ha) are located on private land south of State Highway 200 in southwestern Baker County, Georgia.
Subunit A
Unit GA-1, Subunit A encompasses 163 ac (66 ha) on Mayhaw Wildlife Management Area (managed by the State of Georgia) in Miller County, Georgia
County, Georgia, 269 ac (109 ha) are located on private land adjacent to State Highway 200 in southwestern Baker County, Georgia, and 177 ac (72 ha) are located on private land south of State Highway 200 in southwestern Baker County, Georgia.
Subunit A
Unit GA-1, Subunit A encompasses 163 ac (66 ha) on Mayhaw Wildlife Management Area (managed by the State of Georgia) in Miller County, Georgia. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit B
Unit GA-1, Subunit B encompasses 269 ac (109 ha) on private land adjacent to State Highway 200 in southwestern Baker County, Georgia. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Subunit C
Unit GA-1, Subunit C encompasses 177 ac (72 ha) on private land south of State Highway 200 in southwestern Baker County, Georgia. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat
e flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
South Carolina Critical Habitat Units (SC)
There are four South Carolina units encompassing 1,130 ac (457 ha) across three counties of South Carolina. All units meet the definition of critical
Unit SC-1
Unit SC-1 encompasses 163 ac (66 ha) on private land in Jasper County, South Carolina. This currently occupied unit is bisected by Hwy. 46 and occurs near a rapidly developing area of Jasper County. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soils structure, potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat, and future habitat destruction due to urban and commercial development.
Unit SC-2
Unit SC-2 encompasses 183 acres (74 ha) on private land in Jasper County, South Carolina. This currently occupied unit is bisected by County Road 31, approximately 1 mi (1.6 km) from U.S. Hwy. 321 at Hardeeville, South Carolina. Threats to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soils structure, potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat, and future habitat destruction due to urban and commercial development
special management of the PCEs include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soils structure, potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat, and future habitat destruction due to urban and commercial development.
Unit SC-3
Unit SC-3 encompasses 622 ac (252 ha) on Francis Marion National Forest in Berkeley County, South Carolina. Land within this unit is owned by the U.S. Forest Service and is likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development; however, threats remain to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. They include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Unit SC-4
Unit SC-4 encompasses 162 ac (66 ha) on the Santee Coastal Reserve (managed by the state of South Carolina) in Charleston County, South Carolina. Since this currently occupied unit is owned by the State of South Carolina, it is likely protected from direct agricultural and urban development; however, threats remain to the flatwoods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. They include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat
woods salamander and its habitat that may require special management of the PCEs. They include the potential for fire suppression, potential detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy the below-ground soil structure, and potential hydrologic changes resulting from adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat.
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7 Consultation
Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to ensure that actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. In our regulations at 50 CFR 402.02, we define destruction or adverse modification as “a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for both the survival and recovery of a listed species. Such alterations include, but are not limited to, alterations adversely modifying any of those physical or biological features that were the basis for determining the habitat to be critical.” However, recent decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have invalidated this definition (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service et al. , 245 F.3d 434, 442F (5th Cir 2001)). Pursuant to current national policy and the statutory provisions of the Act, destruction or adverse modification is determined on the basis of whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional (or retain the current ability for the primary constituent elements to be functionally established) to serve the intended conservation role for the species
urrent national policy and the statutory provisions of the Act, destruction or adverse modification is determined on the basis of whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional (or retain the current ability for the primary constituent elements to be functionally established) to serve the intended conservation role for the species.
Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the Service, to evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is proposed or listed as endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if any is proposed or designated. Regulations implementing this interagency cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with us 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. This is a procedural requirement only. However, once a proposed species becomes listed, or proposed critical habitat is designated as final, the full prohibitions of section 7(a)(2) apply to any Federal action. The primary utility of the conference procedures is to maximize the opportunity for a Federal agency to adequately consider proposed species and critical habitat and avoid potential delays in implementing its proposed action as a result of the section 7(a)(2) compliance process, should those species be listed or the critical habitat designated.
Under conference procedures, the Service may provide advisory conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The Service may conduct either informal or formal conferences. Informal conferences are typically used if the proposed action is not likely to have any adverse effects to the proposed species or proposed critical habitat
Under conference procedures, the Service may provide advisory conservation recommendations to assist the agency in eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. The Service may conduct either informal or formal conferences. Informal conferences are typically used if the proposed action is not likely to have any adverse effects to the proposed species or proposed critical habitat. Formal conferences are typically used when the Federal agency or the Service believes the proposed action is likely to cause adverse effects to proposed species or critical habitat, inclusive of those that may cause jeopardy or adverse modification.
The results of an informal conference are typically transmitted in a conference report while the results of a formal conference are typically transmitted in a conference opinion. Conference opinions on proposed critical habitat are typically prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if the proposed critical habitat were already designated. We may adopt the conference opinion as the biological opinion when the critical habitat is designated, if no substantial new information or changes in the action alter the content of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). As noted above, any conservation recommendations in a conference report or opinion are strictly advisory.
If a species is listed or critical habitat is designated, section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies to ensure that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to result in jeopardy to a listed species or the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable
pardize the continued existence of such a species or to destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is likely to result in jeopardy to a listed species or the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat, we also provide reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable. “Reasonable and prudent alternatives” are defined at 50 CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended purpose of the action, that are consistent with the scope of the Federal agency's legal authority and jurisdiction, that are economically and technologically feasible, and that the Director believes would avoid jeopardy to the listed species or destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where a new species is listed or critical habitat is subsequently designated that may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary involvement or control over the action or such discretionary involvement or control is authorized by law. Consequently, some Federal agencies may request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect the flatwoods salamander or its designated critical habitat will require section 7 consultation under the Act
ay request reinitiation of consultation with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if those actions may affect subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat or adversely modify or destroy proposed critical habitat.
Federal activities that may affect the flatwoods salamander or its designated critical habitat will require section 7 consultation under the Act. Activities on State, Tribal, local or private lands requiring a Federal permit (such as a permit from the Corps under section 404 of the Clean Water Act or a permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act from the Service) or involving some other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency) will also be subject to the section 7 consultation process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local or private lands that are not federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require section 7 consultations.
Application of the Jeopardy and Adverse Modification Standards for Actions Involving Effects to the Flatwoods Salamander and Its Critical Habitat
Jeopardy Standard
Prior to the proposed designation of critical habitat, the Service has applied an analytical framework for flatwoods salamander jeopardy analyses that relies heavily on the importance of populations to the survival and recovery of the flatwoods salamander. The section 7(a)(2) analysis is focused not only on these populations but also on the habitat conditions necessary to support them.
The jeopardy analysis usually expresses the survival and recovery needs of the flatwoods salamander in a qualitative fashion without making distinctions between what is necessary for survival and what is necessary for recovery
d recovery of the flatwoods salamander. The section 7(a)(2) analysis is focused not only on these populations but also on the habitat conditions necessary to support them.
The jeopardy analysis usually expresses the survival and recovery needs of the flatwoods salamander in a qualitative fashion without making distinctions between what is necessary for survival and what is necessary for recovery. Generally, if a proposed Federal action is incompatible with the viability of the affected core area population(s), inclusive of associated habitat conditions, a jeopardy finding is warranted because of the relationship of each core area population to the survival and recovery of the species as a whole.
Adverse Modification Standard
For the reasons described in the Director's December 9, 2004, memorandum, the key factor related to the adverse modification determination is whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional (or retain the current ability for the primary constituent elements to be functionally established) to serve the intended conservation role for the species. Generally, the conservation role of flatwoods salamander critical habitat units is to support viable core area populations.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and describe in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical habitat those activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the PCEs to an extent that the conservation value of critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander is appreciably reduced
modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such designation. Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat may also jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
Activities that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the PCEs to an extent that the conservation value of critical habitat for the flatwoods salamander is appreciably reduced. Activities that, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore result in consultation for the flatwoods salamander include, but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would significantly alter water chemistry in flatwoods salamander breeding ponds. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, the release of chemicals, biological pollutants, or sedimentation into the surface water or connected groundwater at a point source or by dispersed release (non-point source) via road construction, urban and agricultural development, ditching, timber harvest, off-road vehicle use, and other watershed disturbances. These activities could alter the condition of the water beyond the tolerances of the flatwoods salamander and its food base, resulting in direct or cumulative adverse affects to individuals and their life cycles.
(2) Actions that would significantly alter the hydroperiod and vegetation of a flatwoods salamander breeding pond. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, road construction, urban and agricultural development, dredging, ditching, or filling ponds, fire suppression, and timber harvest/replanting. These activities could alter the hydrologic timing, duration, or water flows of a pond basin, as well as alter the constituent vegetation. They could also increase the connectivity of breeding ponds to more permanent waters, which would allow the invasion of predatory fish
on, urban and agricultural development, dredging, ditching, or filling ponds, fire suppression, and timber harvest/replanting. These activities could alter the hydrologic timing, duration, or water flows of a pond basin, as well as alter the constituent vegetation. They could also increase the connectivity of breeding ponds to more permanent waters, which would allow the invasion of predatory fish. As a result, the habitat necessary for flatwoods salamander reproduction and the growth and development of eggs and juvenile salamanders would be reduced or eliminated.
(3) Actions that would significantly alter the terrestrial forested habitat of the flatwoods salamander. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, road construction, urban and agricultural development, dredging, ditching, fire suppression, and timber harvest/re-planting. These activities may lead to changes in soil moisture, soil below-ground structure, soil temperatures, and vegetation that would
We consider all of the units proposed as critical habitat, as well as those that have been proposed for exclusion or not included, to contain features essential to the conservation of the flatwoods salamander. All units are within the geographic range of the species, all were occupied by the species at the time of or since listing (based on observations made within the last 9 years), and are likely to be used by the flatwoods salamander. Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas currently occupied by the flatwoods salamander, or if the species may be affected by the action, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the flatwoods salamander
at the time of or since listing (based on observations made within the last 9 years), and are likely to be used by the flatwoods salamander. Federal agencies already consult with us on activities in areas currently occupied by the flatwoods salamander, or if the species may be affected by the action, to ensure that their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of the flatwoods salamander.
Application of Section 3(5)(A) and 4(a)(3) and Exclusions Under Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Application of Section 3(5)(A)
Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines critical habitat as the specific areas within the geographic area occupied by the species on which are found those physical and biological features (i) essential to the conservation of the species, and (ii) which may require special management considerations or protection. Therefore, areas within the geographic area occupied by the species that do not contain the features essential to the conservation of the species are not, by definition, critical habitat. Similarly, areas within the geographic area occupied by the species that require no special management or protection also are not, by definition, critical habitat.
There are multiple ways to provide management for species habitat. Statutory and regulatory frameworks that exist at a local level can provide such protection and management, as can lack of pressure for change, such as areas too remote for anthropogenic disturbance. Finally, State, local, or private management plans, as well as management under Federal agencies jurisdictions, can provide protection and management to avoid the need for designation of critical habitat. When we consider a plan to determine its adequacy in protecting habitat, we consider whether the plan as a whole will provide the same level of protection that designation of critical habitat would provide. The plan need not lead to exactly the same result as a designation in every individual application, as long as the protection it provides is equivalent overall
designation of critical habitat. When we consider a plan to determine its adequacy in protecting habitat, we consider whether the plan as a whole will provide the same level of protection that designation of critical habitat would provide. The plan need not lead to exactly the same result as a designation in every individual application, as long as the protection it provides is equivalent overall. In making this determination, we examine whether the plan provides management, protection, or enhancement of the PCEs that is at least equivalent to that provided by a critical habitat designation, and whether there is a reasonable expectation that the management, protection, or enhancement actions will continue into the foreseeable future. Each review is particular to the species and the plan, and some plans may be adequate for some species and inadequate for others.
Applic

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

## Nearby sections

- [72 FR 62 Community Development Block Grant Program; Small Cities Program; Proposed Rule](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-22502.md)
- [72 FR 96 Atlantic Highly Migratory Species (HMS); U.S. Atlantic Swordfish Fishery Management Measures](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-22512.md)
- [72 FR 485 Airworthiness Directives; Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa “PZL-Bielsko” Model SZD-50-3 “Puchacz” Gliders](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_06-9988.md)
- [72 FR 662 Airworthiness Directives; Bombardier Model DHC-8-102, -103, and -106 Airplanes and Model DHC-8-200 and DHC-8-300 Series Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-22534.md)
- [72 FR 676 Airworthiness Directives; Alpha Aviation Design Limited (Type Certificate No. A48EU Previously Held by Apex Aircraft and Avions Pierre Robin) Model R2160 Airplanes](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-49.md)
- [72 FR 711 Redesignation of Jefferson County, Ohio To Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-22617.md)
- [72 FR 724 Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in the Synthetic Organic Chemicals Manufacturing Industry; Standards of Performance for Equipment Leaks of VOC in Petroleum Refineries](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-20.md)
- [72 FR 1190 Heir Property](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-22102.md)
- [72 FR 1200 Radio Broadcasting Services; Port Chester, NY, and Stamford, CT](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-185.md)
- [72 FR 1384 Termination of a Foreign Private Issuer's Registration of a Class of Securities Under Section 12(g) and Duty To File Reports Under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E6-22405.md)
- [72 FR 1473 Phase 2 of the Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard-Notice of Reconsideration-Extension of Public Comment Period](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-355.md)
- [72 FR 1685 Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; Modification of Administrative Rules Governing Committee Representation](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-425.md)
- [72 FR 1946 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF34-10E Series Turbofan Engines](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-499.md)
- [72 FR 1949 Airworthiness Directives; General Electric Company CF34-10E Series Turbofan Engines](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_E7-498.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FR_PRORULE_07-470. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.