[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13720-13726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-6108]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0007]
[MO 92210-0-0008-B2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on
a Petition to List the Striped Newt as Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of petition finding and initiation of status review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the striped newt (Notophthalmus
perstriatus) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). We find that the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the
striped newt may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this
notice, we are initiating a review of the status of the species to
determine if listing the species is warranted. To ensure that this
status review is comprehensive, we are requesting scientific and
commercial data and other information regarding
[[Page 13721]]
this species. Based on the status review, we will issue a 12-month
finding on the petition, which will address whether the petitioned
action is warranted, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. We
will make a determination on critical habitat for this species if, and
when, we initiate a listing action.
DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct this review, we request
that we receive information on or before May 24, 2010. After this date,
you must submit information directly to the Field Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below). Please note that we may not
be able to address or incorporate information that we receive after the
above requested date.
ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Search for Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0007 and then follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing,
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2010-0007; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information received on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Information Requested
section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor,
Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, 6578 Dogwood View
Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; by telephone (601-965-4900); or by
facsimile (601-965-4340). If you use a telecommunications device for
the deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Requested
When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial
information to indicate that listing a species may be warranted, we are
required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species
(status review). To ensure that the status review is complete and based
on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request
information on the striped newt from governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, and any other
interested parties. We seek information on:
1) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
a) Habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
b) Genetics and taxonomy;
c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns;
d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
2) The factors that are the basis for making a listing determination
for a species under section 4(a) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), which are:
a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; c) Disease or predation;
d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
3) The potential effects of climate change on this species and its
habitat.
If we determine that listing the striped newt is warranted, it is
our intent to propose critical habitat to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable at the time we propose to list the species. Therefore,
with regard to areas within the geographical range currently occupied
by the striped newt, we also request data and information on what may
constitute physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, where these features are currently found,
and whether any of these features may require special management
considerations or protection.
In addition, we request data and information regarding whether
there are areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species
that are essential to the conservation of the species. Please provide
specific comments and information as to what, if any, critical habitat
you think we should propose for designation if the species is proposed
for listing, and why such habitat meets the requirements of the Act.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other supporting publications or data)
to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial information you
include.
Submissions merely stating support for or opposition to the action
under consideration without providing supporting information, although
noted, will not be considered in making a determination. Section
4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that determinations as to whether any
species is an endangered or threatened species must be made ``solely on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.''
You may submit your information concerning this status review by
one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit
information via http://www.regulations.gov, your entire submission--
including any personal identifying information--will be posted on the
website. If you submit a hardcopy that includes personal identifying
information, you may request at the top of your document that we
withhold this personal identifying information from public review.
However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We will
post all hardcopy submissions on http://www.regulations.gov.
Information and supporting documentation that we received and used
in preparing this finding will be available for you to review at http://www.regulations.gov, or you may make an appointment during normal
business hours at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi
Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to list, delist, or reclassify a species presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. We are to base this finding on
information contained in the petition, supporting information submitted
with the petition, and information otherwise readily available in our
files at the time the petition is received. To the maximum extent
practicable, we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt
of the petition and publish our notice of this finding promptly in the
Federal Register.
Our standard for substantial scientific or commercial information
within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) with regard to a 90-day
petition finding is ``that amount of information that would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the measure proposed in the petition
may be warranted'' (50 CFR 424.14(b)). If we find that substantial
scientific or commercial information was presented, we are required to
promptly commence a review of the status of the species, which will be
subsequently summarized in our 12-month finding.
[[Page 13722]]
Petition History
On July 14, 2008, we received a petition dated July 10, 2008, from
Dr. D. Bruce Means, Ryan C. Means, and Rebecca P.M. Means of the
Coastal Plains Institute and Land Conservancy requesting that we list
the striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus) as threatened under the
Act. The petition clearly identified itself as such and included the
requisite identification information for the petitioners, as required
at 50 CFR 424.14(a). In an August 15, 2008, letter to the petitioners,
we stated that we could not address their petition at that time because
responding to existing court orders and settlement agreements for other
listing actions required nearly all of our listing funding. These
delays continued until earlier this fiscal year, when we were able to
allocate funding to the petitioned action.
Previous Federal Actions
We included the striped newt in the November 15, 1994, notice of
plant and animal taxa regarded as candidates for possible listing under
the Act as a Category 2 candidate species (59 FR 58982). In the
February 28, 1996, notice (61 FR 7596), the Service discontinued the
designation of Category 2 species as candidates and thus the striped
newt was no longer considered a candidate species. However, the Service
has monitored this species and has supported research addressing its
distribution, status, life history, and taxonomy.
Species Information
The striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus) is a small salamander
that reaches a total length of 2 to 4 inches (5 to 10 centimeters)
(Conant and Collins 1991, p. 258). A continuous red stripe runs the
length of the side of its trunk and extends onto the head and tail
where it may become fragmented. The stripe is dark-bordered, but not so
boldly and evenly as in the broken-striped newt (N. viridescens
dorsalis) (Conant and Collins 1991, p. 258). There may be a row of red
spots along the side of the body and a faint light stripe down the
center of its back. The ground color of the sides and back is olive-
green to dark brown. The belly is yellow, usually sparsely marked with
black specks. The skin of newts tends to be rougher and less slimy than
other salamanders. The costal grooves (grooves along the side body of
salamanders used in species identification) are indistinct.
Striped newts occur only in Florida and Georgia. Their range
extends along the Atlantic Coastal Plain of southeastern Georgia into
peninsular north-central Florida and up through the Florida panhandle
into portions of southwest Georgia. The historical range of striped
newts was probably similar to the current range. However, due to
extensive habitat modification, many populations have likely been lost
(Dodd et al. 2005, p. 887).
Within their range, striped newts may occur in longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris) - dominated savanna, scrub, or sandhills that have a rich
groundcover of grasses and forbs maintained by frequent fire (Petranka
1998, pp. 448-449). Adults and juvenile newts live in underground
retreats in these uplands. Adults move out of the uplands from late
fall to early spring and into isolated, shallow, temporary ponds to
breed. Immigration to ponds is correlated with heavy rains that result
in pond filling; emigration occurs in response to pond drying and
metamorphosis (Dodd et al. 2005, p. 888). Striped newts breed
exclusively in small, ephemeral ponds that lack predaceous fish
(Christman and Means 1992, p. 62; Dodd et al. 2005, p. 888). These
breeding ponds are typically sinkhole ponds in sandhills and cypress
and bay ponds in the wetter pine flatwoods communities (Christman and
Means 1992, p. 62). Striped newts spend the majority of their lives in
the pine uplands that surround their breeding ponds. Terrestrial adults
may commonly move between 1,640 feet (ft) and 2,297 ft (500 meters (m)
to 700 m) from ponds after breeding (Dodd 1996, p. 47; Johnson 2003, p.
16). Johnson (2003, p. 3) found that at least 16 percent of individuals
breeding at a single pond migrated in excess of 1,640 ft (500 m) from
the pond into the uplands.
Only two species of newt occur in the eastern United States, the
striped newt (N. perstriatus) and the eastern newt (N. viridescens)
(Conant and Collins 1991, p. 256). The striped newt has no subspecies.
The eastern newt consists of four subspecies: the broken-striped newt
(N. v. dorsalis), the central newt (N. v. louisianensis), the peninsula
newt (N. v. piaropicola), and the red-spotted newt (N. v. viridescens).
Superficially, the striped newt resembles these subspecies. However,
allozyme (genetic markers used to compare genetic variation) data
presented by Reilly (1990, p. 55) indicated that the closest relative
of the striped newt is the black-spotted newt (N. meridionalis), which
occurs in south Texas and adjacent Mexico.
The striped newt has one of the most complex life cycles of any
amphibian (Johnson 2002, p. 384). Sexually mature adults migrate to
breeding ponds where courtship, copulation, and egg-laying take place.
Eggs hatch and develop into externally gilled larvae in the temporary
pond environment. Once larvae reach a size suitable for metamorphosis,
they may either undergo metamorphosis and exit the pond as immature
terrestrial newts (efts), or remain in the pond and eventually mature
into gilled aquatic adults (neotenes) (Petranka 1998, pp. 449-450;
Johnson 2005, p. 384). An eft is orange-red with the red stripe of the
adult and is adapted for life in dry longleaf pine-wiregrass forests
(Means 2006, p. 162). The eft remains terrestrial for 1 to 3 years
(presumably until sexually mature) and then returns to a breeding pond
where its skin changes into the aquatic adult form. If a breeding pond
retains water and does not dry up after the normal summer drying
period, larvae may bypass the eft stage and become sexually mature as
gilled larvae. This is termed neoteny (retention of larval
characteristics when sexually mature) and occurs frequently in striped
newts. After reproducing, these individuals initiate metamorphosis and
migrate from the breeding pond into the surrounding uplands (Johnson
2002, p. 384). When ponds dry, both aquatic adult forms and larviform
adults transform and assume the terrestrial adult form (Dodd et al.
2005, p. 888).
Very little is known about the terrestrial life of the striped
newt. A striped newt has survived in captivity as an aquatic adult for
more than 17 years (LaClaire 2008), although such a long aquatic life
probably rarely occurs in nature because of the ephemeral nature of the
species' breeding ponds. Whether this potential longevity extends to
the terrestrial stage of adult striped newts is unknown. The upland
microhabitat preferences of striped newts and the prey items they use
there are also unknown. It is assumed they occur under grass clumps,
under leaf litter, or in burrows, and consume any small invertebrates
they can catch, as do other salamanders in similar below-ground
habitats (Bishop 1941, pp. 70, 128, 151).
Evaluation of Information for This Finding
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 424 set forth the procedures for adding a species
to, or removing a species from, the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. A species may be determined to be an
endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five factors
described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
[[Page 13723]]
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
In making this 90-day finding, we evaluated whether information
regarding the striped newt, as presented in the petition and other
information available in our files, is substantial, thereby indicating
that the petitioned action may be warranted. Our evaluation of this
information is discussed below.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of the Species' Habitat or Range
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners state that striped newts appear sensitive to
habitat loss from disturbance of upland soils and replacement of native
longleaf pine vegetation surrounding breeding ponds. Habitat loss
includes conversion of native pines to pine plantations, agriculture,
or urban development. In a study comparing national forest lands with
nearby pine plantations on the Woodville Karst plain in the panhandle
of Florida, striped newts were present on the national forest lands but
absent from pine plantations (Means and Means 2005, p. 58). Urban
development can result in disruptions of dispersal between breeding
sites and upland adult habitat due to paved and dirt roads, towns,
power line and gas pipeline rights-of-way, and open fields. Presence of
roads can be barriers to movement or can result in direct mortality
during migration or both.
In a study conducted at or near historical striped newt localities
in Georgia, Dodd and LaClaire (1995, p. 37) encountered the striped
newt at only five widely separated locations. In Florida, Franz and
Smith (1999, pp. 8-9) identified 100 historic records for the striped
newt. Johnson and Owen (2005, p. 7) resurveyed the habitat surrounding
these records and ranked only 26 ponds and their surrounding uplands
(26 percent) as having excellent potential to support striped newt
populations. A 12-year study (1995-2007) of vertebrates dependent on
small, isolated wetlands was conducted in the Munson Sandhills of
Apalachicola National Forest, Florida. This area has one of the largest
known historical clusters of breeding ponds (18 ponds) within the
species' range (Means 2007, p. 19). After the severe drought of 1999-
2000, no more than five adult striped newts and no larvae were observed
in the following 7 years of the study (Means 2007, p. 19). This decline
was caused, at least in part, by degradation and loss of longleaf pine
habitats due to various causes, especially lack of fire and hardwood
invasion.
Habitat degradation and destruction of temporary pond breeding
sites within forested habitat represent more specific threats.
Cumulative effects of breeding pond destruction include:
(1) Increasing the dispersal distance between ponds and negatively
impacting striped newt metapopulations (neighboring local populations
close enough to one another that dispersing individuals could be
exchanged (gene flow) at least once per generation); and
(2) Reducing the number of young individuals recruited into
populations (Semlitsch and Bodie 1998, p. 1129). The number of breeding
ponds known for the striped newt throughout its naturally small
geographic range has undergone a drastic decline in the 67 years since
the species was discovered and named.
Littoral zones (the shallow areas of pond where light penetrates
and rooted plants occur) of breeding sites have been destroyed by off-
road vehicles (ORVs). This area of a pond is where striped newt adults
and larvae generally occur. It is also where most primary productivity
occurs and is the location where the pond invertebrates and tadpoles,
which are food sources for striped newts, occur. When this area is
destroyed, the striped newt's food source is lost, as well as the cover
that protects the salamanders from predators. The petitioners provided
documentation of ORV destruction of the littoral zone in five striped
newt breeding ponds.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Data in our files supports the petitioners' assertions that habitat
destruction and degradation is a substantial threat to the striped newt
in Florida. In addition, in a survey of 25 historical striped newt
localities in Georgia, only 2 sites (8 percent) were judged to be
currently suitable for the striped newt (Stevenson 2000, p. 3).
Longleaf pine forests in the Southeast were extensively clear cut
around the turn of the 19th century, and pine forest acreage has
continued to decline. For example, the area of natural pine (from
Virginia southeast through Texas) declined by 54 percent between 1953
and 1999 (Ware and Greis 2002, p. 46). Data from the 1980s and 1990s
indicated that 28 percent of new pine plantations came from forest that
was previously natural pine (Ware and Greis 2002, p. 46). Forecast
models predict that southern forests will continue to be lost to
urbanization (Ware and Greis 2002, p. 92). The result of this habitat
loss is that longleaf pine ecosystems now occupy only 2 percent of
their original range (Ware and Greis 2002, p. 66).
Effects of adjacent land-use conversions on wetland water quality
can extend over comparatively large distances (Houlahan and Findlay
2004, p. 677). Therefore, conversion of forest to urban and
agricultural uses, in the vicinity of striped newt breeding ponds, can
have negative impacts on the quality of breeding sites.
Protection of their longleaf pine ecosystem breeding habitat,
dispersal habitat, and upland adult habitat is essential for the
survival of the striped newt. Population models of an amphibian
(California tiger salamander) with a life cycle similar to the striped
newt were more sensitive to reductions in sub-adult and adult
survivorship than reproductive parameters (Trenham and Shaffer 2005, p.
1158). Striped newts may move greater than 1,640 ft (500 m) between
breeding and upland sites. This data emphasizes the importance of
habitat connectivity in sub-adult and adult survivorship. Habitat
destruction, degradation, and fragmentation of upland habitats can
severely impact the survival of a striped newt population (Marsh and
Trenham 2001, p. 40; Green 2003, p. 331).
Habitat degradation, fragmentation, and destruction have all been
documented within the range of the striped newt. Effects of adjacent
land use to striped newt habitat are also a concern. Since striped
newts require wetland breeding habitat, dispersal habitat, and adult
upland habitat, all of these areas are needed to support a population.
The loss of any one of these three habitat types would disrupt the life
cycle of the species and ultimately cause the extinction of the striped
newt population. In summary, we find that the information provided in
the petition, as well as other information in our files, presents
substantial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted due to the present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of the species' habitat or range.
[[Page 13724]]
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners state that in the 1970s and 1980s, some striped
newt adults from the Munson Sandhills populations were collected and
sold in the pet trade. However, they believe there is no evidence to
suggest over-exploitation is a cause for the decline of striped newt
populations. This is supported by a review conducted in Florida on the
commercial harvest of amphibians and reptiles for the pet trade in
which no data were found to indicate striped newts had been collected
(Enge 2005, p. 200).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
There is no evidence provided by the petitioner, or within our
files, to support threats under this factor. Therefore, we concur with
the petitioner that collection is not a threat to the striped newt. In
summary, we find that the information provided in the petition, as well
as other information in our files, does not indicate or document that
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes poses a threat to this species. However, we will
evaluate all factors, including threats from overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, when we
conduct our status review.
C. Disease or Predation
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners state that although many amphibians are declining
worldwide due to habitat loss, other unidentified processes are
causative agents in about 50 percent of declining species. They also
assert that disease pathogens represent one of the potential causes of
declines. Mortality and population declines due to viruses, bacteria,
and fungi have been widely reported in amphibians.
The petitioners also indicate that chytridiomycosis (a disease
caused by a fungus) is implicated or documented as a causative agent in
many New World amphibian declines. Although no disease has been
reported in the populations studied by the petitioners, they believe
that the total lack of reproduction in 18 of their striped newt study
ponds over a period of 8 years indicates a serious problem exists, and
disease is a potential cause that needs to be considered.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Disease is difficult to document in amphibians, and in pond-
breeding amphibians that live most of their lives underground in
particular. Mortality events in breeding ponds are difficult to observe
because in an aquatic environment, amphibians decompose within days
after dying. Mortality below ground would be even more difficult to
document. In addition, the rarity of the striped newt is also a factor
in documenting mortality in the species. However, there are reasons to
believe that disease may be a possible factor in the decline of striped
newts. Mitchell (2002, p. 3) documented the chytrid fungus
(Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) which causes disease in amphibians at
Fort Stewart Military Installation where striped newts have been in
decline over the past 10 to 15 years. Chytrid fungal infections have
been reported in a newt of the same genus as the striped newt, the
eastern red-spotted newt (Notophthalmus v. viridescens) (Ouellet et al.
2005, p. 1434).
Chytridiomycosis (a disease caused by a fungus) is implicated or
documented as a causative agent in many New World amphibian declines
(Blaustein and Johnson 2003, p. 91). The effect of the disease on
striped newts is unknown; however, California newts (Taricha torosa)
have tested positive for the pathogen in ponds where a die-off of the
species was previously reported (Padgett-Flohr and Longcore 2007, p.
177). We agree that disease pathogens represent one of the potential
causes of declines (Blaustein and Johnson 2003, pp. 87-92).
Another disease caused by a fungus-like protist, Amphibiocystidium
viridescens, has been recently described and has been reported in an
eastern red-spotted newt population (Raffel et al. 2008, p. 204).
Evidence of mortality and morbidity due to infection with this disease,
and the potential importance of secondary infections as a source of
mortality, have been reported for this population (Raffel et al. 2008,
p. 204). Another important issue is that lethal outbreaks of a disease
appear to have complex causes and may result when other stressors, such
as habitat degradation, are affecting a population (Ouellet et al.
2005, p. 1431).
Diseases have been documented in declining salamander populations
and have caused mortality in a population of the eastern newt, which is
in the same genus as the striped newt. It is likely that diseases are
or have been present in striped newt populations, but due to the rarity
of this species, the diseases have not been detected. Widespread
habitat degradation and loss is a stressor on many existing striped
newt populations and may make them more susceptible to disease
outbreaks and potential population extinction. In summary, we find that
the information provided in the petition, as well as other information
in our files, presents substantial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted due to disease, especially given
other stressors on striped newt populations such as habitat loss and
habitat degradation.
D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners state that the striped newt is not formally
recognized at any government level in either of the States in which the
species naturally occurs (Florida and Georgia).
Ephemeral ponds used for breeding by striped newts are provided
little Federal regulatory protection. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that
isolated wetlands were not necessarily protected under the Clean Water
Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.) by nature of their use as habitat
for migratory birds, which are under Federal jurisdiction. Legislation
to clarify this issue has been proposed since 2003, but has not been
acted upon by Congress.
Ephemeral ponds are provided some protection under Florida State
regulations. In Florida, wetland protection is regulated by the five
Water Management Districts (WMDs) and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. All WMDs include isolated wetlands in the
Environmental Resource Permit process, which means that a permit is
required for activities in, on, or over wetlands, including isolated
wetlands. Below a minimum permitting threshold size of 0.5 acres (ac)
(0.2 hectare (ha)), impacts to fish and wildlife and their habitat are
not addressed for mitigation unless a wetland
a) Supports endangered or threatened species;
b) Is located in an area of critical state concern;
c) Is connected by standing or flowing surface water at seasonal
high water level to one or more wetlands that total greater than 0.5 ac
(0.2 ha); or
d) The wetland is of more than minimal value to fish and wildlife.
This may offer some protection for striped newt breeding sites.
However, under Chapter 373.406 of Florida
[[Page 13725]]
Statutes, agriculture (which includes silviculture) has broad
exemptions to alter topography provided it is not for the sole or
predominant purpose of impounding or obstructing surface waters
(Northwest Florida Water Management District 2008, p. 1).
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Although the striped newt has not been given protected status by
Florida (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 2007, p. 2),
it is listed as threatened in Georgia. Georgia law prohibits
harassment, capture, killing, or otherwise directly causing the death
of any protected animal species, and it prohibits selling, purchasing,
or possessing the protected species unless authorized by permit, and
prohibits destroying habitat of any protected animal species on public
lands (Georgia Department of Natural Resources 2006, p. 1). However,
these regulations do not protect the striped newt from destruction of
its habitat on private land.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (ACOE) have provided guidance memoranda for implementing
recent court cases addressing jurisdiction over waters of the United
States under the CWA (EPA and ACOE 2001, pp. 1-7; EPA and ACOE 2008,
pp. 1-13). It is clear from this guidance that isolated wetlands are
not considered waters of the United States under the ``navigable
waters'' definition and thus are not provided protection under this
mechanism adopted by Congress to implement the CWA.
Wetland regulation in the United States is primarily based on
wetland size (Snodgrass et al. 2000, p. 415). However, for amphibians,
there is no relationship between wetland size and species richness. In
fact, small, short hydroperiod wetlands support a unique group of
species, including the striped newt (Snodgrass et al. 2000, p. 414).
For these wetlands, size is not a good predictor for production of
juvenile recruits, adults, or number of amphibian captures (Greenberg
and Tanner 2005, p. 87). Most wetland regulations do not protect small,
short hydroperiod wetlands and thus do not protect the unique species
that breed in them, many of which are in decline.
At the time the petition was submitted to the Service, the U.S.
Forest Service was drafting revisions to its regulations on the
Apalachicola National Forest (ANF) to prohibit riding ORVs in or around
ponds or wetlands. These revisions are now incorporated into their
regulations. In addition, the Service had been advised previously that
the striped newt ponds would be specifically designated off-limits to
ORVs (Petrick 2006). Unfortunately, many striped newt ponds on the ANF
have already been degraded by ORV use and it will take years for them
to recover from past damage.
There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that protect the
striped newt from destruction of its upland forested habitat on private
land. There are no existing regulatory mechanisms that adequately
protect the wetland breeding habitat of the striped newt. Habitat
degradation, fragmentation, and destruction are the primary threats to
the species. The lack of regulatory mechanisms to protect against
habitat loss increases the extinction probability of the striped newt.
In summary, we find that the information provided in the petition, as
well as other information in our files, presents substantial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due
to the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, especially the
lack of regulations protecting most breeding and upland habitat of the
striped newt.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species' Continued
Existence
Information Provided in the Petition
The petitioners state that ecological succession is a possible
cause of decline in the striped newt. They presented data demonstrating
loss of striped newt breeding habitat and adult upland longleaf pine
habitat due to succession resulting from inadequate habitat management
(insufficient prescribed burning to control hardwood encroachment into
breeding ponds and upland forest; see Factor A).
Long-term regional drought has contributed to the decline or
disappearance of striped newts from almost all of their breeding ponds
in the Munson Sandhills of the Apalachicola National Forest in Florida
during the petitioners' 12-year study. Droughts, seasonal and long-
term, have been normal phenomena in the ecology of the striped newt and
other ephemeral pond breeders. However, while drought might explain why
so few ponds have been found with either breeding adults or larvae in
the past decade, drought may mask or exacerbate other causes of
population declines such as habitat degradation and loss. While the
other species that breed in temporary ponds in the Munson Sandhills
appear to have recovered somewhat from the drought, the striped newt
has not.
Evaluation of Information Provided in the Petition and Available in
Service Files
Summary data from southern forests indicate that natural
succession, in conjunction with pine harvesting, is resulting in
conversion of forests with pine species to those with species such as
oaks and hickories (Ware and Greis 2002, p. 47). In addition, the
Service has other supporting data that indicate prolonged drought has
played a factor in reducing the hydroperiod of striped newt breeding
sites. In southeastern Georgia, striped newt breeding ponds monitored
from 1992 to 2004 remained dry for 7 of the 13 years of the study
(Stevenson and Cash 2008, p. 253). In Florida, a known breeding pond in
Putnam County where thousands of striped newts had previously been
collected was dry for a little over 9 years before re-filling (Dodd and
Johnson 2007, p. 150). Monitoring of the pond post-filling resulted in
the capture of only four larval newts (Dodd and Johnson 2007, p. 150).
The threats of natural succession, as a result of inadequate
management, and prolonged drought worsen the effects of high population
fluctuations and local extinctions that occur under normal conditions
in striped newts. The addition of these threats to the already
substantial degradation, fragmentation, and destruction of striped newt
habitat increases the probability of extinction of this species. In
summary, we find that the information provided in the petition, as well
as other information in our files, presents substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted due to other
natural or manmade factors, especially ecological succession due to
fire suppression and long-term regional drought.
Finding
On the basis of our determination under section 4(b)(3)(A) of the
Act, we have determined that the petition presents substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that listing the
striped newt throughout its entire range may be warranted. This finding
is based on information provided under Factors A, C, D, and E. Habitat
degradation, fragmentation, and destruction have all been documented
within the range of the striped newt and represent the primary threats
to the species (Factor A). Since striped newts require wetland breeding
habitat, dispersal habitat, and adult upland habitat, the loss of any
one of these
[[Page 13726]]
three habitat types would disrupt the life cycle of the species and
ultimately cause the extinction of a striped newt population. Diseases
have been documented in declining salamander populations and have
caused mortality in a population of the eastern newt, which is in the
same genus as the striped newt (Factor C). It is likely that diseases
are, or have been, present in striped newt populations, but due to the
rarity of this species the diseases have not been detected. Habitat
loss may make striped newts more susceptible to disease outbreaks and
potential population extinction. There are no existing regulatory
mechanisms that protect the striped newt from destruction of its upland
forested habitat on private land or that adequately protect their
wetland breeding habitat (Factor D). The lack of regulatory mechanisms
to protect against the primary threat of habitat loss increases the
extinction probability of the striped newt. Other natural or manmade
factors, such as the threats of natural succession, prolonged drought,
extreme population fluctuations, and local extinctions, increase the
probability of extinction of this species (Factor E). Because we have
found that the petition presents substantial information indicating
that listing the striped newt may be warranted, we are initiating a
status review to determine whether listing the striped newt under the
Act is warranted.
The ``substantial information'' standard for a 90-day finding
differs from the Act's ``best scientific and commercial data'' standard
that applies to a status review to determine whether a petitioned
action is warranted. A 90-day finding does not constitute a status
review under the Act. In a 12-month finding, we will determine whether
a petitioned action is warranted after we have completed a thorough
status review of the species, which is conducted following a
substantial 90-day finding. Because the Act's standards for 90-day and
12-month findings are different, as described above, a substantial 90-
day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a
warranted finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited in this document is available
on the Internet at http://www.regulatons.gov and upon request from the
Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary authors of this document are staff members of the
Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority: The authority for this action is the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: March 4, 2010.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-6108 Filed 3-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S