Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition to List the Striped Newt as Threatened, 13720-13726 [2010-6108]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 55 (Tuesday, March 23, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13720-13726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: https://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 https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov.
    Information and supporting documentation that we received and used 
in preparing this finding will be available for you to review at https://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 https://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