[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 7, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 32911-32929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13911]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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; 12-Month Finding
on a Petition To List the Striped Newt as Threatened
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to list the striped newt (Notophthalmus
perstriatus) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). After review of all available scientific and commercial
information, we find that listing the striped newt as endangered or
threatened is warranted. Currently, however, listing the striped newt
is precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this
12-month petition finding, we will add the striped newt to our
candidate species list. We will develop a proposed rule to list the
striped newt as our priorities allow. We will make any determination on
critical habitat during development of the proposed listing rule.
During any interim period, we will address the status of the candidate
taxon through our annual Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR).
DATES: The finding announced in this document was made on June 7, 2011.
ADDRESSES: This finding is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2010-0007. Supporting
documentation we used in preparing this finding is available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, North Florida Field Office, 7915 Baymeadows
Way, Suite 200, Jacksonville, FL 32256. Please submit any new
information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this finding
to the above street address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dave Hankla, Field Supervisor, North
Florida Field Office (see ADDRESSES); by telephone at (904) 731-3336;
or by facsimile at (904) 731-3045. If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay
Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires
that, for any petition to revise the Federal Lists of Threatened and
Endangered Wildlife and Plants that contains substantial scientific or
commercial information that listing a species may be warranted, we make
a finding within 12 months of the date of receipt of the petition. In
this finding, we determine whether the petitioned action is: (a) Not
warranted, (b) warranted, or (c) warranted, but immediate proposal of a
regulation implementing the petitioned action is precluded by other
pending proposals to determine whether species are threatened or
endangered, and expeditious progress is being made to add or remove
qualified species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Section 4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we
treat a petition for which the requested action is found to be
warranted but precluded as though resubmitted on the date of such
finding, that is, requiring a subsequent finding to be made within 12
months. We must publish these 12-month findings in the Federal
Register.
Previous Federal Actions
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 (CPI), requesting that
the striped newt (Notophthalmus perstriatus) be listed as threatened
under the Act. Included in the petition was supporting information
regarding the species' taxonomy, biology, historical and current
distribution, and present status, as well as a summary of actual and
potential threats. We acknowledged the receipt of the petition in a
letter to petitioners dated August 15, 2008. In that letter we also
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.
Funding became available to begin processing the petition in early
2010. On March 23, 2010, we published a 90-day finding (75 FR 13720)
that the petition presented substantial information indicating that
listing the striped newt may be warranted and that we were initiating a
status review, for which we would accept public comments until May 24,
2010. This
[[Page 32912]]
notice constitutes the 12-month finding on the July 14, 2008, petition
to list the striped newt as threatened.
Species Information
Our 90-day finding summarized much of the current literature
regarding the striped newt's distribution, habitat requirements, and
life history, and may be reviewed for detailed information (75 FR
13720, March 23, 2010). Below, we briefly summarize previously
presented information, and provide new information that we believe is
relevant to understanding our analysis of the factors affecting the
striped newt.
Taxonomy and Species Description
There are three species of Notophthalmus found in North America.
These include the eastern red spotted newt (N. viridescens), the black-
spotted newt (N. meridionalis), and the striped newt (N. perstriatus).
The three species are found in different areas throughout the United
States and Mexico (Reilly 1990, p. 51). Reilly (1990, p. 53), in his
study of Notophthalmus spp., found that N. perstriatus and N.
meridionalis are distinct species that are more similar and
phylogenetically more closely related than either is to N. viridescens.
In 2008, Zhang et al. (2008, pp. 586 and 592) looked at the
phylogenetic relationship (i.e., evolutionary history of an organism)
of the family Salamandridae and found that the clade (i.e., group of
species that includes all descendents of a common ancestor) containing
newts was separate from the clade containing ``true'' salamanders. The
branching order of the clades for newts are: Primitive newts
(Echinotriton, Pleurodeles, and Tylototriton), New World newts
(Notophthalmus and Taricha), Corisca-Sardinia newts (Euproctus), modern
European newts (Calotriton, Lissotriton, Mesotriton, Neurergus,
Ommatotriton, and Triturus), and modern Asian newts (Cynops,
Pachytriton, and Paramesotriton). New World newts, which include
Notophthalmus, originally evolved from salamandrids migrating from
Europe to North America via the North Atlantic land bridge during the
Mid-Late Eocene (Zhang et al. 2008, p. 595).
Another genetic study, conducted in 2010, looked at whether
populations of Notophthalmus perstriatus that occur in two regions
separated by 125 kilometers (km) (78 miles (mi)) exhibit genetic and
ecological differentiation showing that these two regions are separate
conservation units (Dodd et al. 2005, p. 887; Dodd and LaClaire 1995,
p. 42; Franz and Smith 1999, p. 12; Johnson 2001, pp. 115-116; May et
al. undated, unpublished report). One region consists of populations
located in peninsular Florida and southeastern Georgia, and the other
region consists of populations located in northwestern Florida and
southwestern Georgia (Dodd and LaClaire 1995, p. 42; Franz and Smith
1999, p. 13). May et al. (2010, undated, unpublished report) found that
there is gene flow between localities within each region, but none were
shared between regions. Johnson (2001, pp. 107, 113-115) found genetic
exchange between populations is minimal or nonexistent due to upland
habitat fragmentation that has limited long-distance dispersals and
restricted gene flow. In 2001, Johnson (2001, p. 115) found there was
enough genetic divergence to show that the western region is different
than the eastern regions. However, May et al. (2010, unpublished
report) did not find that there was sufficient genetic divergence to
support splitting eastern and western regions into separate species.
May et al. (2010, unpublished report) ran niche-based distribution
models that showed that there were significant climatic and
environmental differences between the two regions when considering
temperature and precipitation. The western region is characterized by
lower mean temperatures and more extreme winter cold, coupled with
higher variation in temperature and precipitation. These differences in
temperatures and precipitation between the regions should be considered
if translocation between regions is to be used for conservation of this
species. Understanding genetic structure and species ecology will
ensure that genetically similar individuals are moved between areas
with similar environmental conditions.
Life History and Biology
Life-history stages of the striped newt are complex, and include
the use of both aquatic and terrestrial habitats throughout their life
cycle. Striped newts are opportunistic feeders that prey on frog eggs,
worms, snails, fairy shrimp, spiders, and insects (adult and larvae)
that are of appropriate size (Dodd et al. 2005, p. 889; Christman and
Franz 1973, pp. 134-135; Christman and Means 1992, pp. 62-63).
Christman and Franz (1973, p. 135) found that newts were attracted to
frog eggs by smell. Feeding behavior of newts has only been documented
with aquatic adults; little is known of the feeding habits in the
terrestrial stage (Dodd et al. 2005, p. 889).
Aquatic and breeding adults occur in isolated, temporary ponds
associated with well-drained sands. Sexually mature adults migrate to
these breeding ponds, which lack predatory fish, and courtship,
copulation, and egg-laying take place there. Females lay eggs one at a
time and attach them to aquatic vegetation or other objects in the
water. It may take one female several months to lay all of her eggs
(Johnson 2005, p. 94). 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
efts, or remain in the pond and eventually mature into gilled, aquatic
adults (paedomorphs) (Petranka 1998, pp. 449-450; Johnson 2005, p. 94).
The immature, terrestrial efts migrate into the uplands where they
mature into terrestrial adults. Efts will remain in the uplands until
conditions are appropriate (adequate rainfall) to return to the ponds
to reproduce. Johnson (2005, p. 94) found that 25 percent of larvae
became paedomorphs at his study pond. Paedomorphs will postpone
metamorphosis until after they have matured and reproduced. At about a
year old, they will reproduce, metamorphose, and migrate into the
uplands adjacent to the pond (Johnson 2005, pp. 94-95). Once there are
proper conditions (e.g., adequate rainfall) at the ponds, the
terrestrial adults will move back to the ponds to court and reproduce.
Once they return to the ponds, they are referred to as aquatic adults.
Striped newts as well as other Notophthalmus spp. have long
lifespans (approximately 12 to 15 years) in order to cope with
unfavorable stochastic environmental events (e.g., drought) that can
adversely affect reproduction (Dodd 1993b, p. 612; Dodd et al. 2005, p.
889; Wallace et al. 2009, p. 139).
Movement of striped newts by both emigration and immigration occurs
between ponds and surrounding uplands. Adult newts immigrate into ponds
from uplands during the fall and winter months, but some newts also
immigrate during the spring and summer months as well, when
environmental conditions (e.g., adequate rainfall) are conducive to
breeding (Johnson 2005, p. 95). Extended breeding periods allow striped
newts to adapt to temporary breeding habitats whose conditions
fluctuate within seasons (Johnson 2002, p. 395). Even with suitable
water levels in ponds, adults emigrate back into uplands after
breeding. There is a
[[Page 32913]]
staggered pattern of adult immigration into ponds and eft emigration
into uplands due to the required 6 months for larvae to undergo
metamorphosis into efts (Johnson 2002, p. 397).
Suitability of upland habitat around breeding ponds influences the
pattern of immigration and emigration of newts and directional
movements (Dodd 1996, p. 46; Dodd and Cade 1998, p. 337; Johnson 2003,
p. 16). Dodd and Cade (1998, p. 337) found that striped newts migrated
in a direction that favored high pine sandhill habitats. Newts migrate
into terrestrial habitats at significant distances from their breeding
ponds. Dodd (1996, p. 46) found that 82.9 percent of 12 wetland
breeding amphibians (including striped newts) were captured 600 meters
(m) (1,969 feet (ft)) from the nearest wetland, and only 28 percent of
amphibians were captured less than 400 m (1,300 ft) from the wetland.
Johnson (2003, p. 18) found that 16 percent of striped newts in his
study migrated more than 500 m (1, 600 ft) from ponds. Dodd and Cade
(1998, p. 337) showed that striped newts travelled up to 709 m (2,330
ft) from ponds. These long-distance movements of striped newts from
breeding ponds to terrestrial habitats suggest that buffer zones around
ponds should be established to protect upland habitats, as well as
breeding ponds (Dodd 1996, p. 49; Dodd and Cade 1998, p. 337, Johnson
2003, p. 19; Kirkman et al. 1999, p. 557; Semlitsch and Bodie 2003, p.
1219). Trenham and Shaffer (2005, p. 1166) found that protecting at
least 600 m (2,000 ft) of upland habitat would maintain a population
with only a 10 percent reduction in mean population size in the
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Dodd and Cade
(1998, p. 337) suggested that terrestrial buffer zones need to consider
both distance and direction (migratory patterns) when created. Johnson
(2003, p. 19) recommended a protected area extending 1,000 m (3,300 ft)
from a breeding site as upland ``core habitat'' surrounding breeding
ponds.
Optimal pond hydrology is important for maintaining the complex
life-history pathways of striped newts. If there is not enough water in
ephemeral ponds, then larvae will not have enough time to reach the
minimum size needed for metamorphosis and will die as ponds dry up
(Johnson 2002, p. 398). However, permanent ponds could support
predatory fish that feed on aquatic-breeding amphibians (Johnson 2005,
p. 94; Moler and Franz 1987, p. 235). Variable hydroperiods in breeding
ponds over a long time period could result in varying reproductive
success. Dodd (1993, p. 610) found a decline in striped newts due to
persistent drought conditions. Johnson (2002, p. 399) found that heavy
rainfall in the winter of 1997 to spring of 1998 filled ponds to their
maximum depth and contributed to the reproductive success at these
ponds. At one breeding pond, a minimum hydro-period of 139 days (Dodd
1993, pp. 609-610) was needed for larvae to reach complete
metamorphosis. Larvae undergo metamorphosis into efts after a period of
6 months, and in order for larvae to mature into paedomorphs, a
breeding pond must hold water for at least a year (Johnson 2005, p.
94). For a paedormorph to successfully reproduce, ponds must hold water
for an additional 6 months to allow sufficient time for its larvae to
undergo metamorphosis.
Striped newts form metapopulations that persist in isolated
fragments of longleaf pine-wiregrass ecosystems (Johnson 2001, p. 114;
Johnson 2005, p. 95). Within metapopulations, ponds function as focal
points for local breeding populations that experience periods of
extirpation and recolonization through time (e.g., ``ponds as
patches'') (Johnson 2005, p. 95; Marsh and Trenham 2001, p. 41).
Striped newts typically have limited dispersal, which can lead to pond
isolation when stochastic events (e.g., drought) affect rates of
colonization and extinction (Marsh and Trenham 2001, p. 41). In order
for striped newts to recolonize local breeding ponds within the
metapopulation, newts must disperse through contiguous upland habitat
(Dodd and Johnson 2007, p. 150). Protecting the connectivity between
uplands and breeding ponds of diverse hydroperiods is crucial for
maintaining metapopulations (Dodd and Johnson 2007, pp. 150-151; Gibbs
1993, p. 25; Johnson 2005, p. 95). Only a few ``stronghold'' locations
exist, where there are multiple breeding ponds with appropriate upland
habitat that allow dispersal to occur among the ponds (Johnson 2005, p.
95). These ``stronghold'' locations represent different metapopulations
across the range of the striped newt (Johnson 2005, p. 95). These sites
need to be protected and managed to provide long-term protection for
newts. In Florida, these include Apalachicola National Forest, Ocala
National Forest, Jennings State Forest, Katherine Ordway-Swisher
Biological Station, and Camp Blanding Training Site. In Georgia, they
are found at Joseph Jones Ecological Research Center and Fort Stewart
Military Installation (Johnson 2005, p. 95; Stevenson 2000, p. 4).
Habitat
Ephemeral ponds are important components of upland habitat in the
southeastern United States (LaClaire and Franz 1990, p. 9). Ephemeral
ponds tend to be described as small (typically less than 5 hectares
(ha) (12.4 acres (ac)), isolated wetlands with a cyclic nature of
drying and refilling known as hydroperiods. Ephemeral ponds can hold
water at various times throughout a year to allow for reproduction.
Precipitation is the most important water source for ephemeral ponds
(LaClaire and Franz 1990, p. 12). The cyclical nature of ephemeral
ponds prevents predatory fish from inhabiting breeding ponds (Dodd and
Charest 1988, pp. 87, 94; LaClaire and Franz 1990, p. 12; Moler and
Franz 1987, p. 237). Ephemeral ponds are biologically unique, because
they support diverse species that are different than species found in
larger, more permanent wetlands or ponds (Moler and Franz 1987, pp.
234, 236; Kirkman et al. 1999, p. 553).
The frequency and duration of water in ephemeral ponds creates
different zones of vegetation within ponds. One species, maidencane
(Panicum hemitomon), has been found at ephemeral ponds where striped
newts have been found, and seems be a good indicator of the extent of
previous flooding in ponds (LaClaire 1995, p. 88; LaClaire and Franz
1990, p. 10). Persistence of maidencane helps to reduce the rate of
oxidation of organic matter, reduce soil moisture loss, and inhibit
growth and establishment of upland plant species (LaClaire 1995, p.
94). The center of flooded ponds may contain floating-leaved plants,
and is surrounded by vegetation with submerged roots growing along the
wet edges. Surrounding the wet areas are tall and short emergents, such
as sedges, grasses, and rushes such as sandweed (Hypericum
fasciculatum), followed by other grasses such as bluestem grass
(Andropogon virginicus) found in the drier margins of ponds. Water-
tolerant shrubs or trees are found in some transitional zones between
pond and uplands (LaClaire 1995, p. 74; LaClaire and Franz 1990, p.
10).
Ephemeral ponds are surrounded by upland habitats of high pine,
scrubby flatwoods, and scrub (Christman and Means, 1992, p. 62).
Longleaf pine-turkey oak stands with intact ground cover containing
wiregrass (Aristida beyrichiana) are the preferred upland habitat for
striped newts, followed by scrub, then flatwoods (K. Enge, Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation
[[Page 32914]]
Commission, personal communication, May 24, 2010).
Striped newt habitat is fire-dependent, and naturally ignited fires
and prescribed burning maintain an open canopy and reduce forest floor
litter. An open canopy provides sunlight necessary for ground cover
growth needed by newts for foraging and sheltering. Fire is also an
important factor for wetland vegetation (LaClaire and Franz 1990, p.
10; Means 2008, p. 4). Historically, fire would be naturally ignited in
the uplands during the late spring and early summer, and would sweep
through the dry pond basins, reducing organic matter and killing
encroaching upland plant species (Means 2008, p. 4; Myer 1990, p. 189).
Lack of fire in uplands that buffer breeding ponds allows fire-
intolerant hardwoods to shade out herbaceous understory needed by
striped newts for foraging and sheltering. As a result, fire shadows
may form along the upslope wetland and upland boundary. The vegetation
in this area contains fire-intolerant evergreen shrubs (Ilex spp.,
Vaccinium spp., Myrica spp., and Ceratiola spp.) and sometimes xeric
oak hammock zones (LaClaire and Franz 1990, p. 11). Ponds that are
completely burned from the upland margin to the opposite margin lack
this vegetation; however, if the ponds are filled with water, fire will
burn out at the pond, and allow the invasion of fire-intolerant
hardwoods (LaClaire and Franz 1990, p. 11). The impacts of fire on
these temporary ponds promote species richness of grasses and sedges,
especially during droughts (Means 2006, p. 196). To eliminate hardwood
encroachment, a prescribed fire regime should be used every 1 to 3
years during May to June, in order to protect striped newt habitat
(Means 2006, p. 196).
Striped newts use upland habitats that surround breeding ponds to
complete their life cycle. Efts move from ponds to uplands where they
mature into terrestrial adults. The uplands also provide habitat for
the striped newt to forage and burrow during the non-breeding season
(Dodd and Charest 1988, p. 95). Striped newts also use uplands to
access alternative ponds that are needed if the original breeding pond
is destroyed or the hydroperiod is altered (Means 2006, p. 197). This
shows the interdependence between upland and aquatic habitats in the
persistence of populations (Semlitsch and Bodie 2003, p. 1219). Semi-
aquatic species (such as the striped newt) depend on both aquatic and
upland habitats for various parts of their life cycle in order to
maintain viable populations (Dodd and Cade 1998, pp. 336-337; Johnson
2001, p. 47; Semlitsch 1998, p. 1116; Semlitsch and Bodie 2003, p.
1219).
Distribution
The range of the striped newt extends from the Atlantic Coastal
Plain of southeastern Georgia to the north-central peninsula of Florida
and through the Florida panhandle into portions of southwest Georgia
(Dodd et al. 2005, p. 887). There is a 125-km (78-mi) separation
between the western and eastern portions of the striped newt's range
(Dodd et al. 2005, p. 887; Dodd and LaClaire 1995, p. 42; Franz and
Smith 1999, p. 12; Johnson 2001, pp. 115-116). The historical range of
the striped newt was likely similar to the current range (Dodd et al.
2005, p. 887). However, loss of native longleaf habitat, fire
suppression, and the natural patchy distribution of upland habitats
used by striped newts have resulted in fragmentation of existing
populations (Johnson and Owen 2005, p. 2).
In Figure 1, we provide a map illustrating the current and
historical ranges of the striped newt on public lands. The dark-shaded
areas represent the currently occupied sites documented from 2005 to
2010 surveys of public lands (Enge, FWC, personal communication, 2010;
Jensen, Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR), personal
communication, 2010). The light-shaded areas represent the historical
range where striped newts are now extirpated. There are from 1 to 30
breeding ponds documented within dark shaded areas. However, due to the
scale of the map, the specific ponds are not identified. This map
represents the best available information used to establish the
species' range.
[[Page 32915]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07JN11.009
To determine where there may be additional unsurveyed suitable
habitat for striped newts in Florida, Endries et al. (2009, pp. 45-46)
developed a striped newt habitat model. The model was developed using
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) 2003 landcover
classes. Three classes were identified: (1) Breeding (bay, cypress
swamp, freshwater marsh, wet prairie), (2) primary upland (sandhill,
xeric oak scrub, sand pine scrub), and (3) secondary upland (hardwood
hammocks and forests, pinelands, and shrub and brushlands). Then
potential habitat was evaluated for each class. Breeding habitat was
limited to patches that were less than 9 ha (22 ac) in size and which
were contiguous with upland habitats. The primary upland habitats
included in the model were those areas contiguous and within 1,000 m
(3,300 ft) of breeding habitat. Secondary upland habitat was included
for areas that were contiguous and within 500 m (1,600 ft) of primary
uplands and 1,000 m (3,300 ft) of breeding habitat.
The GIS analysis found a total of 244,576 ha (604,360 ac) of
potential habitat (Endries et al. 2009, p. 45). Of the potential
habitat, 122,724 ha (303,257 ac) occurred on 124 sites within public
lands, but only 64 of these sites had greater than 40 ha (100 ac) of
potential habitat. The remaining habitat was found on privately owned
lands in patches that were greater than 79 ha (195 ac) (Endries et al.
2008, pp. 45-46). Of the potential habitat found on public lands, 55
percent occurred on Ocala National Forest (ONF), 8 percent on Camp
Blanding Military Installation, 6 percent on Withlacoochee State
Forest, 5.3 percent on Apalachicola National Forest (ANF), and 2.9
percent on Jennings State Forest (Enge, FWC, personal communication,
2010). However, no records of striped newt occurrences have been found
at Withlacoochee State Forest, even though this appears to be suitable
habitat. Ocala National Forest has 67,514 ha (166,831 ac) of potential
habitat and 39 occupied ponds, making it the largest ``stronghold'' for
metapopulations for striped newts in Florida (Enge, FWC, personal
communication, 2010). Striped newts are also found in ponds throughout
Peninsular Florida at Ordway-Swisher Biological Station, Camp Blanding
Joint Training Center, Jennings State Forest, Goethe State Forest, Rock
Springs State Park, Ft. White Mitigation Park, Faver-Dykes State Park,
and Pumpkin Hill Creek Preserve State Park.
Within the panhandle of Florida, striped newts have been found
within the Munson Sandhills. This site represents a small physiographic
region within the Gulf Coastal Plains in Florida (Means and Means
1998a, p. 3). Striped newts have only been located in the western
portion of the Munson Sandhills within the ANF. No newts have been
found in the eastern portion of the sandhills since the 1980s, when the
area was converted to a dense sand pine (Pinus clausa) plantation
(Means and Means 1998a, p. 6). Striped newt distribution continues
north of this site to the Tallahassee Red Hills and Tifton Uplands, and
finally to the Dougherty Plain in southwestern Georgia. However, the
Tallahassee Red Hills no
[[Page 32916]]
longer support the newt. Striped newts were documented once in a
breeding pond found in the Red Hills, but this site was dredged,
deepened, and stocked with game fish in the 1980s, and no longer
supports newts (Means and Means 1998b, pp. 6, 15).
The striped newt is currently known to occur in five separate
locations in Georgia, including Fort Stewart, Lentile Property, Joseph
W. Jones Ecological Research Center (JJERC), Fall Line Sandhills
Natural Area, and Ohoopee Dunes Natural Area (J. Jensen, GDNR, personal
communication, September 14, 2010; L. Smith, JJERC, personal
communication, September 11, 2010; Stevenson 2000, p. 4; Stevenson and
Cash 2008, p. 252; Stevenson et al. 2009a, pp. 2-3). Most of these
locations are within the Dougherty Plain (Baker Co.), Tifton Uplands
(Irwin, Lanier, and Lowndes Counties), and the Barrier Island Sequence
(Bryan, Camden, Charlton, Evans, and Long Counties) (Dodd and LaClaire
1995, pp. 40-42). From 1993 to 1994, Dodd and LaClaire (1995, p. 40)
found striped newts in one pond each at five sites in Irwin, Baker, and
Charlton Counties, and a series of ponds at Ft. Stewart in Bryan and
Evans Counties. A pond in Baker County at JJERC was found to be a new
location, and extends the known range west of the Flint River
approximately 115 km (71 mi) farther from the nearest recorded site
(LaClaire et al. 1995, pp. 103-104; Franz and Smith 1999, p. 13).
Striped newts were first found on Trail Ridge in 1924 near Okefenokee
National Wildlife Refuge (ONWR), but this area has been highly modified
since the 1940s (Dodd 1995, p. 44; Dodd and LaClaire 1995, pp. 39-40),
and newts are no longer found in this area, except for possibly in the
ONWR. In 2008, a new striped newt site was found in Georgia in Camden
County, which is the first record for this county since 1953 (Stevenson
et al. 2009b, p. 248).
Population Status and Trends
Surveys have been conducted for striped newts at many sites within
Florida and Georgia. These surveys have found that the number of known
occupied sites has declined and occupied sites are limited to just a
few counties. However, historical information on the location of
striped newts is difficult to confirm, as most of these sites underwent
substantial land use changes since newts were first collected (Dodd et
al. 2005, p. 887).
Franz and Smith (1999, p. 8) reviewed 100 records from 20 counties
in Florida between 1922 and 1995, and conducted surveys between 1989
and 1995. They found that 4 historical ponds had newts, but also found
34 new ponds containing newts were that were not part of the historical
records. All 38 breeding ponds were found on 7 public lands that
included ANF, Camp Blanding Military Reservation, Favor-Dykes State
Park, Jennings State Forest, Katharine Ordway Preserve-Swisher Memorial
Sanctuary, ONF, and Rock Springs State Preserve (Franz and Smith, 1999,
pp. 8-9).
Johnson and Owen (2005, p. 7) visited 51 sites in 11 counties in
Florida from 2000 to 2003 that overlapped with the sites visited by
Franz and Smith. They found that of 51 sites visited (totaling 64
ponds), only 26 ponds and adjacent upland habitat had excellent habitat
quality (e.g., multiple ephemeral ponds surrounded by fire-maintained
native uplands) capable of supporting striped newts. Only 4 of these 26
sites had multiple breeding ponds needed to comprise metapopulations.
They were found in Clay, Marion, and Putnam Counties in Camp Blanding
Military Reservation (Clay), Jennings State Forest (Clay), Ocala
National Forest (Marion), and Katherine Ordway Preserve-Swisher
Memorial Sanctuary (Putnam) (Johnson and Owen 2005, p. 7).
From 2005 to 2010, Enge (FWC, personal communication, 2010)
surveyed ponds in suitable habitat on 32 conservation lands in Florida.
He found breeding ponds with newts in 58 ponds on 11 of the 32
conservation lands. He also found that although newts had a wider range
in Florida than Georgia, they remained abundant only on public lands in
Clay, Marion, and Putnam Counties. This is consistent with the surveys
conducted by Franz and Smith (1999, pp. 8-9) and Johnson and Owen
(2005, p. 7). He found that there were a total of 49 extant populations
known from the peninsula of Florida and 7 populations from the
panhandle. An isolated breeding pond farther than 1,000 m (3,300 ft)
from the closest other breeding pond represents a separate population
(Enge, FWC, personal communication, 2010). The striped newt
metapopulations (i.e., multiple breeding ponds with enough upland to
allow for dispersal) are now only found on public lands in Clay,
Putnam, and Marion Counties. Populations still exist in 10 other
counties in Florida, but these counties have fewer than 3 breeding
ponds and these populations are considered vulnerable to extirpation
(Enge, FWC, personal communication, 2010).
The status of the striped newt is unknown on private lands due to
the difficulty in accessing these lands; however, Enge (FWC, personal
communication, 2010) was able to survey 8 ponds on 2 private lands, and
found newts on at least one site.
Striped newt breeding ponds at ANF and other areas within the
Munson Sandhills region in Leon County, Florida, have seen a decline.
ANF was once considered a metapopulation for striped newt (Johnson
2005, p. 95; Johnson and Owen 2005, p. 7; Enge, FWC, personal
communication, 2010). However, the western Munson Sandhills in ANF was
surveyed from 1995-2007, and researchers were only able to locate 18
breeding ponds (containing larvae or breeding adults) in 265 ephemeral
ponds surveyed (Means and Means 1998a, p. 5). Means et al. (2008, p. 6)
found only 5 adult striped newts and no larvae in the past 10 years.
Since 2000, severe drought conditions were experienced at these ponds,
and newts were shown to be declining. Recent surveys conducted in the
Munson Sandhills in 2010 were not able to locate any striped newts at
any of the breeding ponds (Means, CPI, personal communication, 2010).
The precipitous apparent declines now being seen at ANF could occur
elsewhere on protected lands within the striped newt's range, despite
the protection of habitat. This indicates that perhaps other threats
(e.g., disease and drought) may continue to act on the species at these
sites.
As mentioned above, striped newts have only been found at five
locations in Georgia, and these sites are highly fragmented and
isolated (Stevenson 2000, p. 4). An amphibian survey on 196 ephemeral
ponds in 17 counties on timber company lands in the Coastal Plain of
southeastern Georgia did not locate any striped newts in Georgia;
however, striped newts were found in four ponds in Florida (Wigley
1999, pp. 5-10). Stevenson (2000, p. 3) looked at 25 historic striped
newt localities in Georgia and was only able to find 2 sites (8
percent) that had multiple breeding ponds and upland habitat that would
support striped newt populations. As of 2010, only 2 properties in the
State are known to support viable populations: JJERC and Fort Stewart
Army Base (Jensen, GDNR, personal communication, 2010; Stevenson et al.
2009a, p. 2). The Fort Stewart population lies within the range of the
eastern genetic group on the Atlantic Coastal Plain and was represented
by approximately 10 known wetlands. Since 2002, striped newts have been
found at only one wetland at Fort Stewart (Stevenson et al. 2009, p.
2). The JJERC population lies within the range of the western genetic
group on the Gulf Coastal Plain, and is represented by 5 known
wetlands. In
[[Page 32917]]
annual surveys from 2002 to 2010, researchers confirmed striped newts
from only 3 of these 5 known wetlands (Smith, JJERC, personal
communication, 2010). Evidence suggests that both the eastern and
western striped newt populations in Georgia are rare and declining.
Most suitable striped newt habitat in Georgia has been lost to
development or converted to pine plantations and silviculture (Dodd and
LaClaire 1995, p. 43).
Summary of Information Pertaining to the Five Factors
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424) set forth procedures for adding species to the
Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act, a species may be determined to be
endangered or threatened based on any of the following five factors:
(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.
In making this finding, information pertaining to the striped newt
in relation to the five factors provided in section 4(a)(1) of the Act
is discussed below.
In considering whether a species may warrant listing under any of
the five factors, we look beyond the species' exposure to a potential
threat or aggregation of threats under any of the factors, and evaluate
whether the species responds to those potential threats in a way that
causes actual impact to the species. The identification of threats that
might impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a
finding that the species warrants listing. The information must include
evidence indicating that the threats are operative and, either singly
or in aggregation, affect the status of the species. Threats are
significant if they drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of
the species, such that the species warrants listing as endangered or
threatened, as those terms are defined in the Act.
Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or
Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
Striped newts have been found to use both aquatic and upland
habitats throughout their life cycle. Most of these habitats have been
destroyed or modified in the past due to: (1) Conversion of habitat to
intensely managed, planted pine plantations or naturally regenerated
stands (Dodd 1995b, p. 129; Wear and Greis 2002, p. 46); (2) loss of
habitat resulting from urban development (Zwick and Carr 2006, pp. 4-
6); (3) degradation of habitat due to fire suppression (Means 2008, pp.
27-28); and (4) degradation of the habitat by the use of off-road
vehicles and road construction (Means 1996, p. 2; Means 2001; p. 31,
Means 2003 p. 6; Means et al. 1994a., pp. 5-6).
Natural Pine Forest Conversion
Natural pine forests (i.e., longleaf pine forest) that once were
found from southeastern Virginia through eastern Texas have declined to
about 13 million ha (33 million ac), and planted pine plantations
increased to more than 12 million ha (30 million ac) by 1999 (Dodd
1995b., p. 129; Wear and Greis 2002, p. 46). There are presently about
11 million ha (27 million ac) of managed pine plantations where natural
longleaf pines were once found (Frost 2006, p. 36). Within the longleaf
pine ecosystem in the South's coastal plains, only 2.2 percent of the
original range exists (Frost 2006, p. 13; Wear and Greis 2002, p. 66).
Between 1936 and 1989, longleaf pine forests within the range of the
striped newt in Florida decreased from more than 3 million ha (7.6
million ac) to only 384,500 ha (950,000 ac), an 88 percent decrease
(Dodd 1995b., p. 129). Longleaf pine forest in Georgia declined 36
percent between 1981 and 1988 (Dodd 1995b., p. 129).
Habitat loss from the conversion of natural pine forests to
intensely managed, planted pine plantations has greatly disrupted the
dispersal of striped newts between breeding ponds and upland habitat.
Means and Means (1998a, p. 6) found that striped newt habitat at the
Munson Sandhills varied due to differences in silvicultural practice
between the eastern and western portions of the Sandhills. In the
western portion of the Sandhills found within ANF, native groundcover
remains in the second-growth longleaf pine forests, where striped newts
spend most of their adult life. However, the eastern portion of the
Munson Sandhills has been clear-cut and roller-chopped, and planted in
sand pine (Pinus clausa), which is now a closed canopy with little
native groundcover. Surveys of ponds located in the eastern Munson
Sandhills found no striped newts after the site was converted to sand
pine plantations (Means and Means 1998a, p. 4; Means and Means 2005,
pp. 58-59; Means 2008, p. 30).
Silvicultural practices, including mechanical site preparation,
pond ditching, soil disturbance, and the use of fertilizer and
herbicides, can interfere with migration and successful reproduction
(Dodd 1995b, p. 130; Dodd and LaClaire 1995, pp. 43-44; Means and Means
2005, pp. 59-60; Means 2008, p. 29). Pond ditching, which is used to
drain ponds to create ideal conditions for silvicultural operations, is
detrimental to striped newts, because it alters pond hydrology and
facilitates predatory fish movement into otherwise fishless ponds
(Means 2008, p. 30). Ditching creates a shortened hydroperiod, reducing
the amount of time striped newts have to undergo metamorphosis, which
can eventually decrease the number of reproducing adults (Means 2008,
p. 31).
Urban Development
Alteration of upland habitat to urban development can create
habitat fragmentation and loss of metapopulations of striped newts. In
10 coastal Georgia counties, the human population is expected to
increase 51 percent by 2030 (Center for Quality Growth and Regional
Development 2006, p. 4), but no estimate of impact on native habitats
was provided. Striped newts have been found within 5 of these counties
in Georgia, including Bryan, Camden, Long, Liberty, and Screven
Counties (Franz and Smith 1999, p. 13, Stevenson 2000, pp. 6-7). Zwick
and Carr (2006, pp. 4-6) modeled human population growth in Florida,
and concluded that 2.8 million ha (7 million ac) of land will be
converted to urban use by 2060. Of the 2.8 million ha (7 million ac),
they estimated that about 1.1 million ha (2.7 million ac) of native
habitat would be destroyed to accommodate urban development (Zwick and
Carr 2006, p. 2). It is predicted that more than 800,000 ha (2 million
ac) of native habitat in Florida will be developed by 2060 within a
mile of public conservation lands (Zwick and Carr 2006, p. 19; FWC
2008, p. 8). Urban sprawl where newts occur will fragment striped newt
ponds from upland habitats. This will limit movement of newts between
breeding ponds and make them more vulnerable to extinction, as the
genetic viability of the newts declines (FWC 2008, p. 8). Powerlines
and natural gas rights-of-ways impact groundcover associated with
longleaf pine adjacent to breeding ponds, creating barriers to
dispersal and eventually decreasing populations (Means 2001, pp. 31-
32). Striped newt habitat in the Tallahassee Red Hills has been
impacted by urban sprawl and land conversion from 1824 to the
[[Page 32918]]
present, and has resulted in the extirpation of striped newts from this
area (Means and Means 1998b, p. 8).
Small, isolated wetlands support breeding populations of striped
newts. However, small, ephemeral wetlands (less than 0.2 ha (0.5 ac))
receive no protection from development (Johnson 2003, p. 19; Dodd and
Cade 1998, p. 337; see discussion under Factor D below). The loss of
these small, ephemeral wetlands can potentially increase extinction
rates of newts by limiting migration between ponds and corridors, thus
decreasing recolonization of local populations (Gibbs 1993, pp. 25-26;
LaClaire and Franz 1990, p. 13; Semlitsch and Bodie 1998, pp. 1131-
1132). Green (2003, p. 341) concluded that pond-breeding amphibians,
like striped newts, that have highly fluctuating populations and high
frequencies of local extinctions are likely to be affected rapidly by
habitat fragmentation. The loss of breeding ponds due to habitat
destruction will reduce corridors and limit migration between the ponds
and the uplands.
Prescribed Fire
Prescribed fire plays an important role in maintaining productive
breeding ponds for striped newts (Kirkman et al. 1999, p. 556). Burning
in dry ponds is also necessary to maintain the quality of vegetation
needed for striped newts (Johnson 2005, p. 97). Fire suppression at
many sites with newt breeding ponds has been concurrent with the
conversion of uplands to pine plantations (Johnson 2005, p. 97). Lack
of fire can result in the succession of natural pine forests converting
to fire-intolerant species, dominated by hardwoods (Means 2008, pp. 27-
28). Wear and Greis (2002, pp. 46-47) found that 3.9 million ha (9.7
million ac) of natural pine forest throughout the Southeast were
reclassified to hardwood and natural oak-pine forests. Of the remaining
longleaf pine habitat in the southeast, only 0.2 percent is managed
with fire and can support native longleaf pine species of plants and
animals, including striped newts (Frost 2006, p. 38). The succession of
natural pine forest to more shade-tolerant species, such as oaks and
hickories, can result in the loss of ground cover, such as wire grass,
needed by striped newts for shelter and foraging (Means 2001, p. 31).
Frequencies of prescribed burns in these uplands need to take place in
a 1- to 3-year cycle to provide suitable habitat for striped newts
(Johnson and Gjerstad 2006, pp. 287-292). This would also reduce the
naturally woody components around the ephemeral ponds, and stimulate
flowering of grasses used by the newts along the pond margins (Means
2006, p. 196).
In Florida, some public land managers do not currently have the
resources to implement effective habitat management programs (Howell et
al. 2003, p.10). In a questionnaire to State, Federal, and local land
managers throughout Florida, the Service asked what impediments they
had in effectively using prescribed fire to manage scrub, a fire-
maintained ecosystem. Many respondents indicated that funding, staff,
and smoke management issues substantially reduced their ability to burn
(Service 2006, Excel spreadsheet; Thomson 2010, p. 12). Less than 25
percent of public land managers had been ranked as having an excellent
prescribed burn program (Florida Department of Environmental Protection
2007, p. 1). On most public lands in Florida, striped newt habitat is
likely to continue to degrade unless land management funding and
staffing increase in the future.
Off-Road Vehicles and Road Impacts
Means et al. (1994, pp. 6-7; 2008, pp. 11 and 16) found that their
study ponds at the Munson Sandhills in ANF off-road vehicle (ORV) use
had degraded the littoral zone of the breeding ponds into barren sandy
beaches unsuitable for striped newts. The littoral zone provides
shallow, warm water where small aquatic invertebrates are concentrated,
providing food for newts. ORV use also destroys the grasses and grass-
like vegetation around the ponds needed by newts for protection from
predators such as wading birds (Means et al. 2008, p. 11). In 1994, 27
of 100 ponds at ANF were found to be damaged by ORV use, including 3 of
18 striped newt ponds (Means et al. 1994, pp. 6-7). By 2006, ORV
impacts were documented at nearly every pond at ANF (Means et al. 2008,
p. 16). However, by 2010, the ANF closed the Munson Sandhills to ORV
use to protect the striped newt ponds (Petrick, USFS, personal
communication, 2010; see discussion under Factor D below).
Striped newts dispersing from breeding ponds to upland habitat are
also impacted by roads and highways. These impacts usually result in
direct road mortality; desiccation of small, moist-bodied animals (like
newts) on dry asphalt; and increased exposure of these small animals to
aerial predation (Means 1996, p. 2). At one study pond in ANF, Means
(2003, p. 6) found that most striped newts were emigrating and
immigrating to and from the breeding pond across a major highway, U.S.
319.
Summary of Factor A
We have identified a number of threats to striped newt habitat that
have resulted in the destruction and modification of habitat in the
past, are continuing to threaten habitat now, and are expected to
continue to threaten striped newt habitat in the future. Indications
are that the loss of habitat due to conversion of natural pine forests
to more intense silvicultural management regimes will continue in
interior portions of the range of the striped newt. Striped newt
habitat within the species' range in Florida and Georgia is currently
threatened with habitat loss and modification resulting from urban
development. Habitat loss and fragmentation due to urban development
and road construction is expected to continue in the future. Lack of,
or inappropriate use of, prescribed fire is ongoing and likely to
continue in the future, and has adverse effects on striped newt habitat
and extant populations. On the basis of this analysis, we find that the
destruction, modification, or curtailment of the striped newt's habitat
is currently a threat and is expected to persist and possibly escalate
in the future. Because this threat is ongoing and we expect it will
continue over the coming decades; we consider the threat to be
imminent. However, based on the large amount of potential habitat that
is currently in public ownership, and fact that most of the known
striped newt ponds are on conservation lands, we believe the magnitude
of this threat is moderate. Based upon our review of the best
commercial and scientific data available, we conclude that the present
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat
or range is an imminent threat of moderate magnitude to the striped
newt, both now and in the foreseeable future.
Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
The petition provided information that striped newts were collected
and sold during the 1970s and 1980s. However, in our 90-day finding (75
FR 13720, March 23, 2010), we determined that there was no evidence to
support the existence of any threat under this factor. We obtained no
additional information during the status review to indicate that this
factor is currently a threat to the species or will become a threat in
the foreseeable future. Therefore, based on our review of the best
available scientific and commercial information, we conclude that the
striped newt is not threatened by
[[Page 32919]]
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes now or in the foreseeable future.
Factor C. Disease or Predation
In our 90-day finding (75 FR 13720, March 23, 2010), we found no
evidence that predation was a threat to the striped newt, and we
obtained no additional information during the status review that would
change that finding. As to disease, below we summarize what was
previously stated in the 90-day finding (75 FR 13720, March 23, 2010),
as well as additional information obtained during the status review.
Disease can be difficult to detect in pond-breeding amphibians. In
addition, the rarity of striped newts increases the difficulty of
documenting mortality in the species. However, there are reasons to
believe that disease may be a possible factor in the decline of striped
newts. Chytridiomycosis (a disease caused by Batrachochytrium
dendrobatidis) is implicated or documented as a causative agent in many
New World amphibian declines (Blaustein and Johnson 2003, p. 91).
Ouellet et al. (2005, p. 1434) documented the chytrid fungal infections
in the eastern newts (N. viridescens) in North America. A subspecies of
the eastern newt, the central or common newt (N. v. louisanensis), has
been found in the same ponds as the striped newt at ANF and other ponds
in North Florida (Means 2007, p. 19; Means 2001, pp. 19-21; Means et
al. 1994, pp. 9-10 and 30-32). 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).
Some researchers believe that disease pathogens represent one of
the potential causes of decline of the striped newt (Blaustein and
Johnson 2003, pp. 87-92). The presence of chytrid fungal infections
could particularly threaten populations of striped newts, as they may
not have the resiliency to recover after a population crash caused by
this disease (Ouellet et al. 2005, p. 1437). Further, the effect of
this disease could be exacerbated by other stressors, such as habitat
degradation and climate change (Blaustein and Johnson 2003, p. 91;
Ouellet et al. 2005, p. 1432; Rothermel et al. 2008, pp. 3, 13). Daszak
et al. (2005, p. 3236) found that the impact of Batrachochytrium
dendrobatidis on amphibians can vary among species, and several
factors, such as climate (i.e., drought) and life-history traits, can
affect the species' response to the disease. The presence of this
disease in the range of the striped newt is not confirmed, but is a
potential cause for concern, given the deleterious effect of the
disease on other amphibian species.
A group of viruses belonging to the genus Ranavirus has been shown
to affect some local populations and cause localized die-offs of
amphibians (Gray et al. 2009a, p. 244). The Ranavirus could be
affecting populations of the striped newt, but it is difficult to
detect in less abundant species (Gray et al. 2009a, p. 244), and we do
not have confirmation that it is present in striped newt populations.
However, Green et al. (2002, p. 334) found that Ranavirus was the most
frequent cause of amphibian mortality in at least 10 species, including
the spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum) and eastern newt, so this
virus may be impacting striped newt populations in breeding ponds where
other subspecies of eastern newts, such as the central newt
(Notophthalmus viridescens louisianensis), are found. There are two
reasons for the emergence of Ranavirus in amphibian populations: (1)
Reduced amphibian immunity associated with increased occurrence of
anthropogenic stressors (e.g. drought), and (2) introduction of
Ranavirus strains into amphibian populations by humans (Gray et al.
2009b, p. 2).
Another recently described disease, caused by a fungus-like protist
(Amphibiocystidium viridescens), has been reported in eastern newt
populations (Raffel et al. 2008, p. 204). Specifically, evidence of
mortality and morbidity due to infection with this disease, and the
potential importance of secondary infections as a source of mortality,
were reported (Raffel et al. 2008, p. 204). Also, Cook (2008) found a
striped newt in captivity to be infected with a protistan parasite that
has caused disease in other species of amphibians. This parasite,
currently identified as Demomycoides spp. (Cook 2007, p. 2), caused
disease resulting in a complete loss of recruitment of the Mississippi
gopher frog population in Harrison County, Mississippi, in 2003.
Summary of Factor C
We have found that several of the diseases mentioned above have
resulted in mortality of species similar to the striped newt, such as
the eastern newt (which is in the same genus as the striped newt).
Drought conditions are predicted to be more severe and longer in the
coming years. As drought (see discussion under Factor E below) and loss
of habitat (see discussion under Factor A above) continue to act as
stressors, striped newt populations may become more susceptible to
disease outbreaks, which could potentially result in some localized
population extinctions, as has occurred with similar species. Because,
from the best available information, we do not know if disease is
currently affecting the striped newt populations, but we believe it is
likely that it will in the coming decades, we consider this threat to
be nonimminent. Since disease has resulted in loss to similar amphibian
species, and additional stressors (e.g., habitat loss, drought, and
climate change) might make some populations of striped newts more
vulnerable to disease, the magnitude of this threat is moderate. Based
upon our review of the best commercial and scientific data available,
we conclude that disease is a nonimminent threat of moderate magnitude
to the striped newt within the foreseeable future.
Factor D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
There is currently little Federal and State protection of isolated
wetland habitat and surrounding upland habitats. While many States in
the southeastern United States regulate those activities affecting
wetlands that are exempt from section 404 of the Federal Clean Water
Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C.1251 et seq.), Florida is the only State known to
regulate isolated wetlands. In Georgia, there are no State laws that
protect isolated wetlands. Lack of protection for upland habitat under
wetland statutes can result in loss of recruitment of efts and
paedomorphs into the breeding adult population, which would reduce the
potential for the population to persist (Semlitsch 1998, p. 1116).
Federal Statutes and Regulations
The CWA regulates the dredge and fill activities that adversely
affect wetlands. Section 404 of CWA regulates the discharge of dredge
or fill materials into wetlands. Discharges are commonly associated
with projects to create dry land for development sites, water-control
projects, and land clearing. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) share the responsibility
for implementing the permitting program under section 404 of the CWA.
EPA and COE provided a guidance memorandum for implementing recent
court cases addressing jurisdiction over waters of the United States
under the CWA, specifically addressing the term ``navigable waters''
(EPA and COE 2001, pp. 1-7; EPA and COE 2008, pp. 1-13). It is clear
from this guidance that isolated wetlands are not considered
[[Page 32920]]
waters of the United States under the ``navigable waters'' definition
and thus are not provided protection under the CWA. Further wetland
regulations are reviewed by the COE for the development of wetlands
less than 1.2 ha (3 ac) under a permit called Nationwide Permit 26
(Kirkman et al. 1999, p. 553; Snodgrass et al. 2000, p. 415).
The Department of the Interior, through the Service, administers
the National Wildlife Refuge System. The National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966 (NWRAA; 16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee)
provides legislation for the administration of a national network of
lands and water for the conservation, management, and restoration of
fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats for the benefit
of the American people. Amendment of the NWRAA in 1997 requires the
refuge system to ensure that the biological integrity, diversity, and
environmental health of refuges be maintained and requires development
and implementation of a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for each
refuge. The CCP must identify and describe the wildlife and related
habitats in the refuge and actions needed to correct significant
problems that may adversely affect wildlife populations and habitat (16
U.S.C. 668dd(e)). Striped newt habitat within national wildlife refuges
is protected from loss due to urban development. Striped newts have
historically been observed at St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
(SMNWR) in Florida and Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge (ONWR) in
Georgia. Striped newts were historically found at ONWR in the 1920s,
but the only known breeding pond was last occupied by newts in 1994.
Aicher (ONWR, personal communication, September 14, 2010) has not found
striped newts at ONWR, even though this breeding pond is still in good
condition with well-maintained uplands surrounding it. At SMNWR,
surveys conducted in 2002-2005 and again in 2009 were not able to
locate any newts at 34 ponds (Enge, FWC, personal communication, 2010;
Dodd et al. 2007, p. 29). The last known observation was in 1978, but
now the habitat appears to be too degraded to be suitable for striped
newts due to the lack of fire. Striped newts may indirectly benefit
from fire management programs intended to maintain and restore habitat
for species such as the red cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and
gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), but no systematic monitoring
programs are in place to evaluate striped newt responses to land
management activities within the refuge system.
On military installations, the Department of Defense (DOD) must
conserve and maintain native ecosystems, viable wildlife populations,
Federal and State listed species, and habitats as vital elements of its
natural resource management programs, to the extent these requirements
are consistent with the military mission (DOD Instruction 4715.3).
Amendments to the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670 et seq.) require each
military department to prepare and implement an integrated natural
resources management plan (INRMP) for each installation under its
jurisdiction. The INRMP must be prepared in cooperation with the
Service and State fish and wildlife agencies, and must reflect the
mutual agreement of these parties concerning conservation, protection,
and management of wildlife resources (16 U.S.C. 670a). Each INRMP must
provide for wildlife, land and forest management, wildlife-oriented
recreation, wildlife habitat enhancement, wetland protection,
sustainable public use of natural resources that are not inconsistent
with the needs of wildlife resources, and enforcement of natural
resource laws (16 U.S.C 670a). DOD regulations mandate that resources
and expertise needed to establish and implement an integrated natural
resources management program are maintained (DOD Instruction 4715.3).
These regulations further define the INRMP requirements, and mandate
that plans be revised every 5 years and that they ensure the military
lands suitable for management of wildlife are actually managed to
conserve wildlife resources (DOD Instruction 4715.3).
The effectiveness of individual INRMPs to protect striped newts
vary between and within military departments. Because the striped newt
is not a protected species in Florida, the INRMP for Camp Blanding
Military Installation does not specifically address management programs
for this species. However, management activities that benefit the red-
cockaded woodpecker and gopher tortoise, such as prescribed burning,
should also benefit the striped newt. The striped newt is listed as
threatened by the State of Georgia, so the INRMP for Fort Stewart Range
and Garrison does address the specific conservation and management of
this species.
The Navy does incorporate protective ecosystem management into
INRMPs for Naval Air Station Jacksonville (and associated Rodman
Bombing Range, Pinecastle Range, and Outlying Landing Field
Whitehouse), Naval Station Mayport, and Naval Submarine Base Kings Bay.
However, the INRMPs do not include specific management measures for the
striped newt.
The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (16
U.S.C. 36),of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of
1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), requires that each national forest be
managed under a forest plan which must be revised every 10 years.
Regulations governing preparation of forest plans are found in 36 CFR
219. The purpose of a forest plan is to provide an integrated framework
for analyzing and approving future, site-specific projects and
programs, including conservation of listed species. Identification and
implementation of land management and conservation measures to benefit
striped newts vary between forests. For example, on the National
Forests in Florida, striped newts are not designated as a species for
which special management prescriptions are implemented. There are no
specific land management objectives for striped newts on the National
Forests in Florida. The Land and Resource Management Plan for the
National Forests in Florida (U.S. Forest Service 1999, entire) provides
for the restoration of longleaf pine forest through various management
areas located at Apalachicola National Forest (ANF) and Ocala National
Forest (ONF). Metapopulations of striped newts are found at both of
these forests. However, a decline of striped newt populations at ANF
has occurred over the past 10 years (Means et al. 2008, p. 6).
State Statutes and Regulations
Generally, State statutes and regulations protect striped newts
from take, but the effectiveness and implementation of regulations vary
between States. The striped newt is not currently a State-listed
species in Florida. However, the ephemeral ponds in Florida have some
protection under Florida State regulations. The five Water Management
Districts (WMDs) and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) regulate wetland protection. The WMDs include isolated wetlands
in the Environmental Resource Permit process, which requires a permit
for any activities that would impact a wetland (SJRWMD 2010, p. 1).
Under the WMDs permitting process, mitigation for impacts to wetlands
below a minimum permitting threshold size of 0.2 ha (0.5 ac) is not
addressed unless the wetland supports an endangered or threatened
species, is connected by standing or flowing surface water at seasonal
high water level to one or more wetlands that total
[[Page 32921]]
more than 0.2 ha (0.5 ac), or is of more than minimal value to fish and
wildlife (SJRWMD 2010, p. 1). This minimum permitting threshold size
was adopted by the WMD, ``based on consensus of scientific and
regulatory opinions rather than on biological and hydrological
evidence'' (Hart and Newman 1995, p. 4). However, under Florida Statue
Title XXVIII Chapter 371.406, agriculture (which includes silviculture)
has exemptions to alter topography unless it is for the sole purpose of
impounding or obstructing surface waters.
The size of the wetland is primarily how the State of Florida and
the COE address wetland regulations. Snodgrass et al. (2000, p. 415)
found that wetland values were based on four assumptions: (1) That
small wetlands are ephemeral; (2) because wetlands are ephemeral, they
support few species; (3) species supported by small wetlands are also
found in large wetlands; and (4) populations found in individual
wetlands are independent from other wetlands. Snodgrass et al. (2000 p.
219) concluded that these assumptions are not accurate and that there
is no relationship between wetland size and species richness. Instead,
wetland regulations should include a diversity of hydroperiods and
connectedness of wetlands (Snodgrass et al. 2000, p. 219). Protecting
these small wetlands will help maintain biodiversity with respect to
the number of plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate species, including
striped newts (Moler and Franz 1987, pp. 236-237). The loss of these
small, ephemeral wetlands changes the metapopulation dynamics of
striped newts by reducing the number of individuals that can disperse
and reproduce successfully, and by increasing the dispersal distance
among wetlands (Semlitsch and Bodie 1998, p. 1131). The reduction in
wetland densities decreases the probability that populations can be
recovered by adjacent source populations, due to greater distances
between wetlands, which eventually leads to population extinctions
(Gibbs 1993, pp. 25-26; Semlitsch and Bodie 1998, pp. 1131-1132). This
makes it important to not only consider local and regional wetland
distribution in wetland regulations, but also the protection of the
surrounding non-breeding uplands, in which the newts complete their
metamorphosis from efts to adults, and from which the adults emigrate
back to the breeding ponds.
In Georgia, a State statute requires that any rule and regulation
promulgated for protected species (including the striped newt) shall
not affect rights on private property or in public or private streams,
nor shall such rules and regulations impede construction of any type
(Ga. Code Ann. section 27-3-132(b)). Georgia's Endangered Wildlife Act
of 1973 establishes statutory protection for protected species (Ga.
Code Ann. section 27-3-130-133). Georgia Board of Natural Resources
Rule (Chapter 391-4-10) mirrors the statue, but includes permitting for
research under a scientific collecting permit (Ga. Code Ann. section
27-2-12). Any implementing regulations are constrained by these
statutory requirements, and therefore can only prohibit collection,
killing, or selling of individual newts. There are no regulatory or
permitting mechanisms in place in Georgia to address habitat
destruction or striped newt mortality resulting from development
projects on private lands. Consequently, striped newts and their
habitat in private ownership in Georgia are vulnerable to ongoing and
future habitat loss and mortality.
Local Laws and Ordinances
Florida's State Comprehensive Plan and Growth Management Act of
1985 (F.A.C. 163 Part II) requires each county to develop local
comprehensive planning documents. Comprehensive plans contain policy
statements and natural resource protection objectives, including
protection of State and federally listed species, but they are only
effective if counties develop, implement, and enforce ordinances. Some
Florida county governments have developed protective ordinances for
State and federally listed species, but all such ordinances are based
on compliance with the State or Federal law, rather than enacting more
stringent local laws. Consequently, Florida's local governments provide
no additional protection to striped newts. We are aware of no county or
local regulations or ordinances that protect the striped newt beyond
existing State law in Georgia.
Conservation Efforts To Increase Adequacy of Existing Regulations
As we indicated above, the inadequacies of existing regulations are
inextricably linked to threats associated with the present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the striped
newt's habitat or range, explained under Factor A above. However, the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has now restricted or closed ORV use in
sensitive biological communities, such as wetlands (USFS 2010, p. 1),
at both ANF and ONF. ORVs have historically been a recurring issue in
or around ponds at ANF and ONF. However, recent changes at ANF and ONF
have made ORVs off-limits in the Munson Sandhills and the ephemeral
ponds in the ONF where striped newt ponds were being affected by ORV
use (Petrick, USFS, personal communication, 2006).
Summary of Factor D
Current Federal, State, and local regulations do not protect the
vast majority of striped newts or their habitat on private lands. In
Georgia, striped newt populations on private lands are not protected
under State regulations, even though the striped newt is listed as
threatened in that State. The status of striped newts on private lands
is unknown, but is likely threatened by ongoing land uses, such as
development and silviculture. Regulatory mechanisms at the local,
State, and Federal levels provide varying degrees of protection to
wetlands, but do not protect the small, ephemeral wetlands that striped
newts use for breeding sites. Many regulations do not address
management needs of the striped newt. We find that existing regulatory
mechanisms are insufficient to reduce or remove threats to striped
newts on public and private lands, including wetlands that may support
striped newt populations, and we therefore find that the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms is an imminent threat to this species
throughout all of its range, as it is occurring now and not expected to
change in the near future. This threat is pervasive throughout the
species' entire range, so the magnitude of this threat is moderate.
Therefore, based on our review of the best available scientific and
commercial information, we conclude that the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms is an imminent threat of moderate magnitude to
the striped newt, both now and in the foreseeable future.
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting the Species'
Continued Existence
The effects of a long-term drought have contributed to the decline
of striped newts from breeding ponds at not only the Munson Sandhills
of the ANF in Florida, but at breeding sites throughout Florida and
Georgia. Droughts normally occur in cycles and amphibian populations
fluctuate with drought conditions (Dodd 1992, pp. 138-139). However,
droughts lasting several years (more than 4) were found to have
affected reproductive success, resulting in population decline (Dodd
1992, p. 139; Dodd and Johnson 2007, p. 150; Petranka 1998, p. 450).
Surveys conducted at the Camp Blanding
[[Page 32922]]
Training Site in 2000 to 2001, during a drought, did not find any
striped newts, due to dry breeding ponds. In previous years, surveys
found 7 to 10 sites with newts (Gregory et al. 2006, p. 487). Striped
newts will respond to drought conditions in several ways: (1) Temporary
extirpation; (2) migration to adjacent areas with better habitat
conditions; and (3) survival in upland habitat, with recolonization
once water has returned (Dodd 1993, p. 612).
Even with the return of water at the Munson Sandhills in ANF,
striped newt populations have not recovered (Means, CPI, personal
communication, 2010). Although droughts are a naturally occurring event
in the ecology of the striped newt, prolonged droughts can worsen
threats to already small populations, and exacerbate the degradation
and fragmentation of striped newt habitat that is already taking place
(discussed under Factor A above), leading to extinction of striped
newts in many areas.
We expect climate change will result in the loss and degradation of
striped newt habitat in the future, particularly in Florida. According
to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Synthesis Report (IPCC
2007, p. 2), warming of the earth's climate is ``unequivocal,'' as is
now evident from observations of increases in average global air and
ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising sea
level. Temperatures are predicted to rise from 2.0 degrees Celsius
([deg]C) to 5.0 [deg]C (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) to 9.0 [deg]F)
for North America by the end of this century (IPCC 2007, p. 9). The
IPCC (2007, pp. 2, 6) report outlines several scenarios that are
virtually certain or very likely to occur in the next 50 years,
including: (1) Over most land, there will be fewer cold days and
nights, and warmer and more frequent hot days and nights; (2) Areas
affected by drought will increase; and (3) The frequency of heavy
precipitation events over most land areas will likely increase. The
Southeastern United States is predicted to experience more severe and
longer droughts. Other processes to be affected by this projected
warming include rainfall (amount, seasonal timing, and distribution),
storms (frequency and intensity), and sea level rise.
Indirect impacts are expected due to the relocation of people from
flood-prone urban areas to inland areas (Ruppert et al. 2008, p. 127),
including the relocation of millions of people to currently undeveloped
interior natural areas (Stanton and Ackerman 2007, p. 15). Others have
proposed implementation of a large-scale systematic translocation of
at-risk human populations to interior locations (Gilkey 2008, pp. 9-
12). Florida's interior natural ecological communities will likely be
impacted by the increasing need of urban infrastructure to support
retreating coastal inhabitants. While available data are not adequately
specific to evaluate the potential direct effects of predicted climate
changes on the striped newt or provide information on just how much
habitat may be lost, any habitat loss related to climate change would
be in addition to the 20 percent loss projected to occur by 2060 due
solely to people moving into Florida (FWC 2008, p. 2).
Summary of Factor E
We have identified that long-term droughts have resulted in the
loss of striped newt breeding ponds, exacerbating existing population
fluctuations and causing local extinctions. This threat is ongoing and
is expected to continue in the future, especially because threats to
habitat continue to affect existing striped newt populations and may
make them more susceptible to potential population extinction. On the
basis of this analysis, we find that the natural factor of long-term
droughts is currently a threat and is expected to persist, and possibly
escalate in the future, as a result of climate change, although climate
change itself is not an imminent threat. Because we expect this threat
will occur over the coming decades, we consider the threat to be
imminent. Throughout the entire range of the striped newt, droughts are
predicted to be more severe and longer in duration in the coming years,
so we believe the magnitude of this threat is high. Based upon our
review of the best commercial and scientific data available, we
conclude that other natural or manmade factors affecting the species'
continued existence is an imminent threat of high magnitude to the
striped newt, both now and in the foreseeable future.
Finding
As required by the Act, we conducted a review of the status of the
species and considered the five factors in assessing whether the
striped newt is endangered or threatened throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. We examined the best scientific and
commercial information available regarding the past, present, and
future threats faced by the striped newt. We reviewed the petition,
information available in our files, and other available published and
unpublished information, and we consulted with striped newt experts and
other Federal and State agencies.
In considering whether a species may warrant listing under any of
the five factors, we look beyond the species' exposure to a potential
threat or aggregation of threats under any of the factors, and evaluate
whether the species responds to those potential threats in a way that
causes actual impact to the species. The identification of threats that
might impact a species negatively may not be sufficient to compel a
finding that the species warrants listing. The information must include
evidence indicating that the threats are operative and, either singly
or in aggregation, affect the status of the species. Threats are
significant if they drive, or contribute to, the risk of extinction of
the species, such that the species warrants listing as endangered or
threatened, as those terms are defined in the Act.
This status review identified threats to the striped newt
attributable to Factors A, C, D, and E. The primary threats to the
striped newt are habitat loss, disease, inadequate regulatory
mechanisms, and drought. Habitat destruction and modification (Factor
A) in the form of conversion of native longleaf pine forests to
intensively managed pine forests and urban development are occurring on
private lands throughout the range. Disease (Factor C) is expected to
become more problematic for striped newts as additional habitat is lost
and fragmentation increases. Stressors such as habitat loss (Factor A)
and droughts (Factor E) are expected to elevate risks of diseases in
newts because this has been the case with similar species. Regulatory
mechanisms are inadequate to prevent further loss of breeding ponds
(Factor D) throughout the striped newt's range. Existing regulations
also do not protect striped newts on private lands in Florida and
Georgia. Long-term regional droughts in Florida and Georgia (Factor E)
have a negative impact on the long-term persistence of striped newts.
Since 2000, the striped newt has been monitored at 20 of the best
breeding ponds on ANF (Means, CPILC, personal communication, 2010;
Means and Means 1998a., pp. 9-25; Means et al. 1994, pp. 14-24; Means
et al. 2008, p. 6). Since 2000, severe drought conditions were
experienced at these ponds, and newts were shown to be declining.
However, despite improving conditions at these ponds, no striped newts
were located in 2010. The precipitous apparent declines now being seen
at ANF could occur elsewhere on protected lands within the striped
newt's range, despite the
[[Page 32923]]
protection of habitat. This suggests that perhaps other threats (e.g.,
disease and drought) may continue to act on the species at these sites.
Drought conditions are predicted to be more severe and longer in the
coming years. As described under Factor C, drought and other factors
continue to act as stressors on existing striped newt populations and
may make them more susceptible to disease outbreaks and may result in
the population extinction of some metapopulations. There has not been
any evidence of disease at other large metapopulations, such as ONF.
On the basis of the best scientific and commercial information
available, we find that the petitioned action to list the striped newt
as endangered or threatened is warranted. We will make a determination
on the status of the striped newt as endangered or threatened when we
complete a proposed listing determination. However, as explained in
more detail below, an immediate proposal of a regulation implementing
this action is precluded by higher priority listing actions, and
progress is being made to add or remove qualified species from the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
We have reviewed the available information to determine if the
existing and foreseeable threats render the species at risk of
extinction now such that issuing an emergency regulation temporarily
listing the species in accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the Act is
warranted. We have determined that issuing an emergency regulation
temporarily listing the striped newt is not warranted for this species
at this time because there are no impending actions that might result
in extinction of the species that would be addressed and alleviated by
emergency listing, and the severity and timing of the threats are such
that the risk of extinction will not occur over a short duration, or be
caused by any one action. However, if at any time we determine that
issuing an emergency regulation temporarily listing the striped newt is
warranted, we will initiate this action at that time.
Listing Priority Number
The Service adopted guidelines on September 21, 1983 (48 FR 43098),
to establish a rational system for utilizing available resources for
the highest priority species when adding species to the Lists of
Endangered or Threatened Wildlife and Plants or reclassifying species
listed as threatened to endangered status. These guidelines, titled
``Endangered and Threatened Species Listing and Recovery Priority
Guidelines,'' address the immediacy and magnitude of threats, and the
level of taxonomic distinctiveness by assigning priority in descending
order to monotypic genera (genus with one species), full species, and
subspecies (or equivalently, distinct population segments (DPSes) of
vertebrates). We assign the striped newt a Listing Priority Number
(LPN) of 8, based on our determination that the primary threats are
moderate and imminent. These threats include habitat destruction,
disease, inadequate regulatory mechanisms, and droughts. Rationale for
assigning the striped newt an LPN of 8 is outlined below.
Under the Service's LPN Guidance, the magnitude of threat is the
first criterion we look at when establishing a listing priority. The
guidance indicates that species with the highest magnitude of threat
are those species facing the greatest threats to their continued
existence. These species receive the highest listing priority. The
primary threats to striped newt (e.g., habitat loss, disease,
inadequate regulatory mechanisms, and drought) are occurring in
populations throughout the species' range. For Factor E, we consider
the magnitude high because nearly all populations are affected, and
this factor may lead to possible extirpation. Also, throughout the
entire range of the striped newt, droughts are predicted to be more
severe and longer in the coming years, which could have a detrimental
effect on the species' long-term survival. With drought as a possible
cause for the decline in the population at ANF, we predict that, with
continued drought conditions, declines are likely to occur at other
protected lands as well, with possible extirpation in those areas. We
consider the magnitude for Factors A and C moderate, as most of the
known striped newt metapopulations are on conservation lands, and,
although disease has been found in similar species, no known
metapopulations of striped newts have shown any evidence of disease.
Existing regulatory mechanisms at the local, State, and Federal levels
provide varying degrees of protection to wetlands, but do not protect
the small, ephemeral wetlands striped newts use for breeding sites. The
lack of regulatory protection has not prevented further loss of
breeding ponds and adjacent upland habitat throughout the species'
range. We consider this a threat that is moderate in magnitude. In sum,
because we find that threats under three factors (A, C, and D) are
moderate, we find the overall threats that the striped newt is facing
to be moderate in magnitude.
Under our LPN Guidance, the second criterion we consider in
assigning a listing priority is the immediacy of threats. This
criterion is intended to ensure that the species that face actual,
identifiable threats are given priority over those for which threats
are only potential or that are intrinsically vulnerable but are not
known to be presently facing such threats. Factors A, D, and E are
considered imminent because they are occurring now and are expected to
continue to occur in the future. These actual, identifiable threats are
covered in detail under the discussion of Factors A, D, and E of this
finding. Because we find that threats under three factors (A, D, and E)
are imminent, and the threat under one factor (C) to be nonimminent, we
find the overall threats that the striped newt is facing to be
imminent.
The third criterion in our LPN guidance is intended to devote
resources to those species representing highly distinctive or isolated
gene pools as reflected by taxonomy. The striped newt is a valid taxon
at the species level, and therefore receives a higher priority than
subspecies or DPSes, but a lower priority than species in a monotypic
genus. The striped newt faces mostly moderate magnitude, largely
imminent threats, and is a valid taxon at the species level. Thus, in
accordance with our LPN guidance, we have assigned the striped newt an
LPN of 8.
We will continue to monitor the threats to the striped newt, and
the species' status on an annual basis, and should the magnitude or the
imminence of the threats change, we will revisit our assessment of the
LPN.
Work on a proposed listing determination for the striped newt is
precluded by work on higher priority listing actions with absolute
statutory, court-ordered, or court-approved deadlines and final listing
determinations for those species that were proposed for listing with
funds from Fiscal Year 2011. This work includes all the actions listed
in the tables below under expeditious progress.
Preclusion and Expeditious Progress
Preclusion is a function of the listing priority of a species in
relation to the resources that are available and the cost and relative
priority of competing demands for those resources. Thus, in any given
fiscal year (FY), multiple factors dictate whether it will be possible
to undertake work on a listing proposal or whether promulgation of such
a proposal is precluded by higher priority listing actions.
The resources available for listing actions are determined through
the
[[Page 32924]]
annual Congressional appropriations process. The appropriation for the
Listing Program is available to support work involving the following
listing actions: Proposed and final listing rules; 90-day and 12-month
findings on petitions to add species to the Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) or to change the status of a
species from threatened to endangered; annual ``resubmitted'' petition
findings on prior warranted-but-precluded petition findings as required
under section 4(b)(3)(C)(i) of the Act; critical habitat petition
findings; proposed and final rules designating critical habitat; and
litigation-related, administrative, and program-management functions
(including preparing and allocating budgets, responding to
Congressional and public inquiries, and conducting public outreach
regarding listing and critical habitat). The work involved in preparing
various listing documents can be extensive and may include, but is not
limited to: Gathering and assessing the best scientific and commercial
data available and conducting analyses used as the basis for our
decisions; writing and publishing documents; and obtaining, reviewing,
and evaluating public comments and peer review comments on proposed
rules and incorporating relevant information into final rules. The
number of listing actions that we can undertake in a given year also is
influenced by the complexity of those listing actions; that is, more
complex actions generally are more costly. The median cost for
preparing and publishing a 90-day finding is $39,276; for a 12-month
finding, $100,690; for a proposed rule with critical habitat, $345,000;
and for a final listing rule with critical habitat, $305,000.
We cannot spend more than is appropriated for the Listing Program
without violating the Anti-Deficiency Act (see 31 U.S.C.
1341(a)(1)(A)). In addition, in FY 1998 and for each fiscal year since
then, Congress has placed a statutory cap on funds that may be expended
for the Listing Program, equal to the amount expressly appropriated for
that purpose in that fiscal year. This cap was designed to prevent
funds appropriated for other functions under the Act (for example,
recovery funds for removing species from the Lists), or for other
Service programs, from being used for Listing Program actions (see
House Report 105-163, 105th Congress, 1st Session, July 1, 1997).
Since FY 2002, the Service's budget has included a critical habitat
subcap to ensure that some funds are available for other work in the
Listing Program (``The critical habitat designation subcap will ensure
that some funding is available to address other listing activities''
(House Report No. 107-103, 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 19,
2001)). In FY 2002 and each year until FY 2006, the Service has had to
use virtually the entire critical habitat subcap to address court-
mandated designations of critical habitat, and consequently none of the
critical habitat subcap funds have been available for other listing
activities. In some FYs since 2006, we have been able to use some of
the critical habitat subcap funds to fund proposed listing
determinations for high-priority candidate species. In other FYs, while
we were unable to use any of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations, we did use some of this money to fund
the critical habitat portion of some proposed listing determinations so
that the proposed listing determination and proposed critical habitat
designation could be combined into one rule, thereby being more
efficient in our work. At this time, for FY 2011, we do not know if we
will be able to use some of the critical habitat subcap funds to fund
proposed listing determinations.
We make our determinations of preclusion on a nationwide basis to
ensure that the species most in need of listing will be addressed first
and also because we allocate our listing budget on a nationwide basis.
Through the listing cap, the critical habitat subcap, and the amount of
funds needed to address court-mandated critical habitat designations,
Congress and the courts have in effect determined the amount of money
available for other listing activities nationwide. Therefore, the funds
in the listing cap, other than those needed to address court-mandated
critical habitat for already listed species, set the limits on our
determinations of preclusion and expeditious progress.
Congress identified the availability of resources as the only basis
for deferring the initiation of a rulemaking that is warranted. The
Conference Report accompanying Public Law 97-304 (Endangered Species
Act Amendments of 1982), which established the current statutory
deadlines and the warranted-but-precluded finding, states that the
amendments were ``not intended to allow the Secretary to delay
commencing the rulemaking process for any reason other than that the
existence of pending or imminent proposals to list species subject to a
greater degree of threat would make allocation of resources to such a
petition [that is, for a lower-ranking species] unwise.'' Although that
statement appeared to refer specifically to the ``to the maximum extent
practicable'' limitation on the 90-day deadline for making a
``substantial information'' finding (see 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(A)), that
finding is made at the point when the Service is deciding whether or
not to commence a status review that will determine the degree of
threats facing the species, and therefore the analysis underlying the
statement is more relevant to the use of the warranted-but-precluded
finding, which is made when the Service has already determined the
degree of threats facing the species and is deciding whether or not to
commence a rulemaking.
In FY 2011, on April 15, 2011, Congress passed the Full-Year
Continuing Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 112-10) which provides funding
through September 30, 2011. The Service has $22,103,000 for the listing
program. Of that, the Service anticipates needing to dedicate
$11,632,000 for determinations of critical habitat for already listed
species. Also $500,000 is appropriated for foreign species listings
under the Act. The Service thus has $9,971,000 available to fund work
in the following categories: compliance with court orders and court-
approved settlement agreements requiring that petition findings or
listing determinations be completed by a specific date; section 4 (of
the Act) listing actions with absolute statutory deadlines; essential
litigation-related, administrative, and listing program-management
functions; and high-priority listing actions for some of our candidate
species. In FY 2010, the Service received many new petitions and a
single petition to list 404 species. The receipt of petitions for a
large number of species is consuming the Service's listing funding that
is not dedicated to meeting court-ordered commitments. Absent some
ability to balance effort among listing duties under existing funding
levels, it is unlikely that the Service will be able to initiate any
new listing determinations for candidate species in FY 2011.
In 2009, the responsibility for listing foreign species under the
Act was transferred from the Division of Scientific Authority,
International Affairs Program, to the Endangered Species Program.
Therefore, starting in FY 2010, we used a portion of our funding to
work on the actions described above for listing actions related to
foreign species. In FY 2011, we anticipate using $1,500,000 for work on
listing actions for foreign species, which reduces funding available
for domestic listing actions; however, currently only $500,000 has been
allocated for this function. Although
[[Page 32925]]
there are no foreign species issues included in our high-priority
listing actions at this time, many actions have statutory or court-
approved settlement deadlines, thus increasing their priority. The
budget allocations for each specific listing action are identified in
the Service's FY 2011 Allocation Table (part of our administrative
record).
For the above reasons, funding a proposed listing determination for
the striped newt is precluded by court-ordered and court-approved
settlement agreements, listing actions with absolute statutory
deadlines, and work on proposed listing determinations for those
candidate species with a higher listing priority (i.e., candidate
species with LPNs of 1 to 7).
Based on our September 21, 1983, guidelines for assigning an LPN
for each candidate species (48 FR 43098), we have a significant number
of species with a LPN of 2. Using these guidelines, we assign each
candidate an LPN of 1 to 12, depending on the magnitude of threats
(high or moderate to low), immediacy of threats (imminent or
nonimminent), and taxonomic status of the species (in order of
priority: monotypic genus (a species that is the sole member of a
genus); species; or part of a species (subspecies, distinct population
segment, or significant portion of the range)). The lower the listing
priority number, the higher the listing priority (that is, a species
with an LPN of 1 would have the highest listing priority).
Because of the large number of high-priority species, we have
further ranked the candidate species with an LPN of 2 by using the
following extinction-risk type criteria: International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) Red list status/
rank; Heritage rank (provided by NatureServe); Heritage threat rank
(provided by NatureServe); and species currently with fewer than 50
individuals, or 4 or fewer populations. Those species with the highest
IUCN rank (critically endangered); the highest Heritage rank (G1); the
highest Heritage threat rank (substantial, imminent threats); and
currently with fewer than 50 individuals, or fewer than 4 populations,
originally comprised a group of approximately 40 candidate species
(``Top 40''). These 40 candidate species have had the highest priority
to receive funding to work on a proposed listing determination. As we
work on proposed and final listing rules for those 40 candidates, we
apply the ranking criteria to the next group of candidates with an LPN
of 2 and 3 to determine the next set of highest priority candidate
species. Finally, proposed rules for reclassification of threatened
species to endangered are lower priority, because as listed species,
they are already afforded the protections of the Act and implementing
regulations. However, for efficiency reasons, we may choose to work on
a proposed rule to reclassify a species to endangered if we can combine
this with work that is subject to a court-determined deadline.
With our workload so much bigger than the amount of funds we have
to accomplish it, it is important that we be as efficient as possible
in our listing process. Therefore, as we work on proposed rules for the
highest priority species in the next several years, we are preparing
multi-species proposals when appropriate, and these may include species
with lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same
threats as a species with an LPN of 2. In addition, we take into
consideration the availability of staff resources when we determine
which high-priority species will receive funding to minimize the amount
of time and resources required to complete each listing action.
As explained above, a determination that listing is warranted but
precluded must also demonstrate that expeditious progress is being made
to add and remove qualified species to and from the Lists of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. As with our ``warranted-but-
precluded'' finding, the evaluation of whether progress in adding
qualified species to the Lists has been expeditious is a function of
the resources available for listing and the competing demands for those
funds. (Although we do not discuss it in detail here, we are also
making expeditious progress in removing species from the list under the
Recovery program in light of the resource available for delisting,
which is funded by a separate line item in the budget of the Endangered
Species Program. So far during FY 2011, we have completed one delisting
rule; see 76 FR 3029.) Given the limited resources available for
listing, we find that we are making expeditious progress in FY 2011.
This progress includes preparing and publishing the following
determinations:
FY 2011 Completed Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Publication date Title Actions FR pages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10/6/2010...................... Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 75 FR 61664-61690
the Altamaha Endangered.
Spinymussel and
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
10/7/2010...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 62070-62095
Petition to list the petition finding, Not
Sacramento Splittail warranted.
as Endangered or
Threatened.
10/28/2010..................... Endangered Status and Proposed Listing 75 FR 66481-66552
Designation of Endangered
Critical Habitat for (uplisting).
Spikedace and Loach
Minnow.
11/2/2010...................... 90[dash]Day Finding on Notice of 90-day 75 FR 67341-67343
a Petition to List Petition Finding, Not
the Bay Springs substantial.
Salamander as
Endangered.
11/2/2010...................... Determination of Final Listing 75 FR 67511-67550
Endangered Status for Endangered.
the Georgia Pigtoe
Mussel, Interrupted
Rocksnail, and Rough
Hornsnail and
Designation of
Critical Habitat.
11/2/2010...................... Listing the Rayed Bean Proposed Listing 75 FR 67551-67583
and Snuffbox as Endangered.
Endangered.
11/4/2010...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 67925-67944
Petition to List petition finding,
Cirsium wrightii Warranted but
(Wright's Marsh precluded.
Thistle) as
Endangered or
Threatened.
12/14/2010..................... Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 75 FR 77801-77817
Dunes Sagebrush Endangered.
Lizard.
12/14/2010..................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78029-78061
Petition to List the petition finding,
North American Warranted but
Wolverine as precluded.
Endangered or
Threatened.
[[Page 32926]]
12/14/2010..................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78093-78146
Petition to List the petition finding,
Sonoran Population of Warranted but
the Desert Tortoise precluded.
as Endangered or
Threatened.
12/15/2010..................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 75 FR 78513-78556
Petition to List petition finding,
Astragalus Warranted but
microcymbus and precluded.
Astragalus schmolliae
as Endangered or
Threatened.
12/28/2010..................... Listing Seven Final Listing 75 FR 81793-81815
Brazilian Bird Endangered.
Species as Endangered
Throughout Their
Range.
1/4/2011....................... 90[dash]Day Finding on Notice of 90-day 76 FR 304-311
a Petition to List Petition Finding, Not
the Red Knot substantial.
subspecies Calidris
canutus roselaari as
Endangered.
1/19/2011...................... Endangered Status for Proposed Listing 76 FR 3392-3420
the Sheepnose and Endangered.
Spectaclecase Mussels.
2/10/2011...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 7634-7679
Petition to List the petition finding,
Pacific Walrus as Warranted but
Endangered or precluded.
Threatened.
2/17/2011...................... 90[dash]Day Finding on Notice of 90-day 76 FR 9309-9318
a Petition To List Petition Finding,
the Sand Verbena Moth Substantial.
as Endangered or
Threatened.
2/22/2011...................... Determination of Final Listing 76 FR 9681-9692
Threatened Status for Threatened.
the New Zealand-
Australia Distinct
Population Segment of
the Southern
Rockhopper Penguin.
2/22/2011...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 9722-9733
Petition to List petition finding,
Solanum conocarpum Warranted but
(marron bacora) as precluded.
Endangered.
2/23/2011...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 991-10003
Petition to List petition finding, Not
Thorne's Hairstreak warranted.
Butterfly as
Endangered.
2/23/2011...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 10166-10203
Petition to List petition finding,
Astragalus Warranted but
hamiltonii, Penstemon precluded and Not
flowersii, Eriogonum Warranted.
soredium, Lepidium
ostleri, and
Trifolium friscanum
as Endangered or
Threatened.
2/24/2011...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 10299-10310
Petition to List the Petition Finding, Not
Wild Plains Bison or substantial.
Each of Four Distinct
Population Segments
as Threatened.
2/24/2011...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 10310-10319
Petition to List the Petition Finding, Not
Unsilvered Fritillary substantial.
Butterfly as
Threatened or
Endangered.
3/8/2011....................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 12667-12683
Petition to List the petition finding,
Mt. Charleston Blue Warranted but
Butterfly as precluded.
Endangered or
Threatened.
3/8/2011....................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 12683-12690
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Texas Kangaroo Rat as Substantial.
Endangered or
Threatened.
3/10/2011...................... Initiation of Status Notice of Status 76 FR 13121-13122
Review for Longfin Review.
Smelt.
3/15/2011...................... Withdrawal of Proposed Proposed rule 76 FR 14210-14268
Rule to List the Flat- withdrawal.
tailed Horned Lizard
as Threatened.
3/22/2011...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 15919-15932
Petition to List the petition finding,
Berry Cave Salamander Warranted but
as Endangered. precluded.
4/1/2011....................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 18138-18143
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Spring Pygmy Sunfish Substantial.
as Endangered.
4/5/2011....................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 18684-18701
Petition to List the petition finding, Not
Bearmouth Warranted and
Mountainsnail, Byrne Warranted but
Resort Mountainsnail, precluded.
and Meltwater Lednian
Stonefly as
Endangered or
Threatened.
4/5/2011....................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 18701-18706
Petition To List the Petition Finding,
Peary Caribou and Substantial.
Dolphin and Union
population of the
Barren-ground Caribou
as Endangered or
Threatened.
4/12/2011...................... Proposed Endangered Proposed Listing 76 FR 20464-20488
Status for the Three Endangered.
Forks Springsnail and
San Bernardino
Springsnail, and
Proposed Designation
of Critical Habitat.
4/13/2011...................... 90[dash]Day Finding on Notice of 90-day 76 FR 20613-20622
a Petition To List Petition Finding,
Spring Mountains Substantial.
Acastus Checkerspot
Butterfly as
Endangered.
4/14/2011...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 20911-20918
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Prairie Chub as Substantial.
Threatened or
Endangered.
4/14/2011...................... 12-Month Finding on a Notice of 12-month 76 FR 20918-20939
Petition to List petition finding,
Hermes Copper Warranted but
Butterfly as precluded.
Endangered or
Threatened.
4/26/2011...................... 90-Day Finding on a Notice of 90-day 76 FR 23256-23265
Petition to List the Petition Finding,
Arapahoe Snowfly as Substantial.
Endangered or
Threatened.
[[Page 32927]]
4/26/2011...................... 90[dash]Day Finding on Notice of 90-day 76 FR 23265-23271
a Petition to List Petition Finding, Not
the Smooth-Billed Ani substantial.
as Threatened or
Endangered.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our expeditious progress also includes work on listing actions that
we funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 but have not yet been completed to
date. These actions are listed below. Actions in the top section of the
table are being conducted under a deadline set by a court. Actions in
the middle section of the table are being conducted to meet statutory
timelines, that is, timelines required under the Act. Actions in the
bottom section of the table are high-priority listing actions. These
actions include work primarily on species with an LPN of 2, and, as
discussed above, selection of these species is partially based on
available staff resources, and when appropriate, include species with a
lower priority if they overlap geographically or have the same threats
as the species with the high priority. Including these species together
in the same proposed rule results in considerable savings in time and
funding, when compared to preparing separate proposed rules for each of
them in the future.
Actions Funded in FY 2010 and FY 2011 But Not Yet Completed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions Subject to Court Order/Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4 parrot species (military macaw, yellow- 12-month petition finding.
billed parrot, red-crowned parrot, scarlet
macaw) \5\.
4 parrot species (blue-headed macaw, great 12-month petition finding.
green macaw, grey-cheeked parakeet,
hyacinth macaw) \5\.
4 parrots species (crimson shining parrot, 12-month petition finding.
white cockatoo, Philippine cockatoo,
yellow-crested cockatoo) \5\.
Utah prairie dog (uplisting)............... 90-day petition finding.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actions With Statutory Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's june beetle........................ Final listing determination.
6 Birds from Eurasia....................... Final listing determination.
5 Bird species from Colombia and Ecuador... Final listing determination.
Queen Charlotte goshawk.................... Final listing determination.
5 species southeast fish (Cumberland Final listing determination.
darter, rush darter, yellowcheek darter,
chucky madtom, and laurel dace) \4\.
Ozark hellbender \4\....................... Final listing determination.
Altamaha spinymussel \3\................... Final listing determination.
3 Colorado plants (Ipomopsis polyantha Final listing determination.
(Pagosa Skyrocket), Penstemon debilis
(Parachute Beardtongue), and Phacelia
submutica (DeBeque Phacelia)) \4\.
Salmon crested cockatoo.................... Final listing determination.
6 Birds from Peru & Bolivia................ Final listing determination.
Loggerhead sea turtle (assist National Final listing determination.
Marine Fisheries Service) \5\.
2 mussels (rayed bean (LPN = 2), snuffbox Final listing determination.
No LPN) \5\.
CA golden trout \4\........................ 12-month petition finding.
Black-footed albatross..................... 12-month petition finding.
Mojave fringe-toed lizard \1\.............. 12-month petition finding.
Kokanee--Lake Sammamish population \1\..... 12-month petition finding.
Cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl \1\........... 12-month petition finding.
Northern leopard frog...................... 12-month petition finding.
Tehachapi slender salamander............... 12-month petition finding.
Coqui Llanero.............................. 12-month petition finding/Proposed listing.
Dusky tree vole............................ 12-month petition finding.
5 WY plants (Abronia ammophila, Agrostis 12-month petition finding.
rossiae, Astragalus proimanthus, Boechere
(Arabis) pusilla, Penstemon gibbensii)
from 206 species petition.
Leatherside chub (from 206 species 12-month petition finding.
petition).
Frigid ambersnail (from 206 species 12-month petition finding.
petition) \3\.
Platte River caddisfly (from 206 species 12-month petition finding.
petition) \5\.
Gopher tortoise--eastern population........ 12-month petition finding.
Grand Canyon scorpion (from 475 species 12-month petition finding.
petition).
Anacroneuria wipukupa (a stonefly from 475 12-month petition finding.
species petition) \4\.
3 Texas moths (Ursia furtiva, Sphingicampa 12-month petition finding.
blanchardi, Agapema galbina) (from 475
species petition).
2 Texas shiners (Cyprinella sp., Cyprinella 12-month petition finding.
lepida) (from 475 species petition).
3 South Arizona plants (Erigeron 12-month petition finding.
piscaticus, Astragalus hypoxylus,
Amoreuxia gonzalezii) (from 475 species
petition).
5 Central Texas mussel species (3 from 475 12-month petition finding.
species petition).
14 parrots (foreign species)............... 12-month petition finding.
Striped Newt \1\........................... 12-month petition finding.
Fisher--Northern Rocky Mountain Range \1\.. 12-month petition finding.
Mohave Ground Squirrel \1\................. 12-month petition finding.
Puerto Rico Harlequin Butterfly \3\........ 12-month petition finding.
[[Page 32928]]
Western gull-billed tern................... 12-month petition finding.
Ozark chinquapin (Castanea pumila var. 12-month petition finding.
ozarkensis) \4\.
HI yellow-faced bees....................... 12-month petition finding.
Giant Palouse earthworm.................... 12-month petition finding.
Whitebark pine............................. 12-month petition finding.
OK grass pink (Calopogon oklahomensis) \1\. 12-month petition finding.
Ashy storm-petrel \5\...................... 12-month petition finding.
Honduran emerald........................... 12-month petition finding.
Southeastern pop snowy plover & wintering 90-day petition finding.
pop. of piping plover \1\.
Eagle Lake trout \1\....................... 90-day petition finding.
32 Pacific Northwest mollusks species 90-day petition finding.
(snails and slugs) \1\.
42 snail species (Nevada & Utah)........... 90-day petition finding.
Spring Mountains checkerspot butterfly..... 90-day petition finding.
Bay skipper................................ 90-day petition finding.
Spot-tailed earless lizard................. 90-day petition finding.
Eastern small-footed bat................... 90-day petition finding.
Northern long-eared bat.................... 90-day petition finding.
10 species of Great Basin butterfly........ 90-day petition finding.
6 sand dune (scarab) beetles............... 90-day petition finding.
Golden-winged warbler \4\.................. 90-day petition finding.
404 Southeast species...................... 90-day petition finding.
Franklin's bumble bee \4\.................. 90-day petition finding.
2 Idaho snowflies (straight snowfly & Idaho 90-day petition finding.
snowfly) \4\.
American eel \4\........................... 90-day petition finding.
Gila monster (Utah population) \4\......... 90-day petition finding.
Leona's little blue \4\.................... 90-day petition finding.
Aztec gilia \5\............................ 90-day petition finding.
White-tailed ptarmigan \5\................. 90-day petition finding.
San Bernardino flying squirrel \5\......... 90-day petition finding.
Bicknell's thrush \5\...................... 90-day petition finding.
Chimpanzee................................. 90-day petition finding.
Sonoran talussnail \5\..................... 90-day petition finding.
2 AZ Sky Island plants (Graptopetalum 90-day petition finding.
bartrami & Pectis imberbis) \5\.
I'iwi \5\.................................. 90-day petition finding.
Carolina hemlock........................... 90-day petition finding.
Western glacier stonefly (Zapada glacier).. 90-day petition finding.
Thermophilic ostracod (Potamocypris 90-day petition finding.
hunteri).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-Priority Listing Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Oahu candidate species \2\ (16 plants, 3 Proposed listing.
damselflies) (15 with LPN = 2, 3 with LPN
= 3, 1 with LPN = 9).
19 Maui-Nui candidate species \2\ (16 Proposed listing.
plants, 3 tree snails) (14 with LPN = 2, 2
with LPN = 3, 3 with LPN = 8).
Chupadera springsnail \2\ (Pyrgulopsis Proposed listing.
chupaderae (LPN = 2)).
8 Gulf Coast mussels (southern kidneyshell Proposed listing.
(LPN = 2), round ebonyshell (LPN = 2),
Alabama pearlshell (LPN = 2), southern
sandshell (LPN = 5), fuzzy pigtoe (LPN =
5), Choctaw bean (LPN = 5), narrow pigtoe
(LPN = 5), and tapered pigtoe (LPN = 11))
\4\.
Umtanum buckwheat (LPN = 2) and white Proposed listing.
bluffs bladderpod (LPN = 9) \4\.
Grotto sculpin (LPN = 2) \4\............... Proposed listing.
2 Arkansas mussels (Neosho mucket (LPN = 2) Proposed listing.
& Rabbitsfoot (LPN = 9)) \4\.
Diamond darter (LPN = 2) \4\............... Proposed listing.
Gunnison sage-grouse (LPN = 2) \4\......... Proposed listing.
Coral Pink Sand Dunes Tiger Beetle (LPN = Proposed listing.
2) \5\.
Miami blue (LPN = 3) \3\................... Proposed listing.
Lesser prairie chicken (LPN = 2)........... Proposed listing.
4 Texas salamanders (Austin blind Proposed listing.
salamander (LPN = 2), Salado salamander
(LPN = 2), Georgetown salamander (LPN =
8), Jollyville Plateau (LPN = 8)) \3\.
5 SW aquatics (Gonzales Spring Snail (LPN = Proposed listing.
2), Diamond Y springsnail (LPN = 2),
Phantom springsnail (LPN = 2), Phantom
Cave snail (LPN = 2), Diminutive amphipod
(LPN = 2)) \3\.
2 Texas plants (Texas golden gladecress Proposed listing.
(Leavenworthia texana) (LPN = 2), Neches
River rose-mallow (Hibiscus dasycalyx)
(LPN = 2)) \3\.
4 AZ plants (Acuna cactus (Echinomastus Proposed listing.
erectocentrus var. acunensis) (LPN = 3),
Fickeisen plains cactus (Pediocactus
peeblesianus fickeiseniae) (LPN = 3),
Lemmon fleabane (Erigeron lemmonii) (LPN =
8), Gierisch mallow (Sphaeralcea
gierischii) (LPN = 2)) \5\.
FL bonneted bat (LPN = 2) \3\.............. Proposed listing.
3 Southern FL plants (Florida semaphore Proposed listing.
cactus (Consolea corallicola) (LPN = 2),
shellmound applecactus (Harrisia (=Cereus)
aboriginum (=gracilis)) (LPN = 2), Cape
Sable thoroughwort (Chromolaena frustrata)
(LPN = 2)) \5\.
21 Big Island (HI) species \5\ (includes 8 Proposed listing.
candidate species--6 plants & 2 animals; 4
with LPN = 2, 1 with LPN = 3, 1 with LPN =
4, 2 with LPN = 8).
[[Page 32929]]
12 Puget Sound prairie species (9 Proposed listing.
subspecies of pocket gopher (Thomomys
mazama ssp.) (LPN = 3), streaked horned
lark (LPN = 3), Taylor's checkerspot (LPN
= 3), Mardon skipper (LPN = 8)) \3\.
2 TN River mussels (fluted kidneyshell (LPN Proposed listing.
= 2), slabside pearlymussel (LPN = 2)) \5\.
Jemez Mountain salamander (LPN = 2) \5\.... Proposed listing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funds for listing actions for these species were provided in previous FYs.
\2\ Although funds for these high-priority listing actions were provided in FY 2008 or 2009, due to the
complexity of these actions and competing priorities, these actions are still being developed.
\3\ Partially funded with FY 2010 funds and FY 2011 funds.
\4\ Funded with FY 2010 funds.
\5\ Funded with FY 2011 funds.
We have endeavored to make our listing actions as efficient and
timely as possible, given the requirements of the relevant law and
regulations, and constraints relating to workload and personnel. We are
continually considering ways to streamline processes or achieve
economies of scale, such as by batching related actions together. Given
our limited budget for implementing section 4 of the Act, these actions
described above collectively constitute expeditious progress.
The striped newt will be added to the list of candidate species
upon publication of this 12-month finding. We will continue to monitor
the status of this species as new information becomes available. This
review will determine if a change in status is warranted, including the
need to make prompt use of emergency listing procedures.
We intend that any proposed classification of the striped newt will
be as accurate as possible. Therefore, we will continue to accept
additional information and comments from all concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this finding.
References Cited
A complete list of references cited is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov and upon request from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, North Florida Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).
Authors
The primary authors of this notice are the staff members of the
North Florida Field Office.
Authority
The authority for this section is section 4 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: May 3, 2011.
Rowan W. Gould,
Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2011-13911 Filed 6-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P