2011 Federal Register, 76 FR 59774; Centralized Library: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Federal Register, Volume 76 Issue 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59774-59802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24046]

[[Page 59773]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 187

September 27, 2011

Part II

Department of the Interior

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fish and Wildlife Service

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for Mississippi Gopher Frog; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 59774]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0024; MO 92210-0-0009]
RIN 1018-AW89

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Mississippi Gopher Frog

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Revised proposed rule; availability of draft economic analysis;
and reopening of comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to designate
critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog (Rana sevosa) [= Rana
capito sevosa] under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act). We also announce revisions to the proposed critical habitat
units, as described in the proposed rule published in the Federal
Register on June 3, 2010 (75 FR 31387), and announce the availability
of the draft economic analysis (DEA) for the revised proposed critical
habitat designation. This proposed rule replaces the previous June 3,
2010, proposed rule in its entirety. In total, approximately 2,839
hectares (ha) (7,015 acres (ac)) are being proposed for designation as
critical habitat in 12 units, 3 of which are divided into 2 subunits
each. The proposed critical habitat is located within St. Tammany
Parish, Louisiana, and Forrest, Harrison, Jackson, and Perry Counties,
Mississippi. The comment period will allow all interested parties an
opportunity to comment simultaneously on the revised proposed rule, the
associated DEA, and the amended required determinations section.

DATES: We will accept comments received or postmarked on or before
November 28, 2011. We must receive requests for public hearings, in
writing, at the address shown in the ADDRESSES section by November 14,
2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword box, enter Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2010-0024, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Send a Comment or Submission.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2010-0024; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see Public Comments section below
for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office, 6578
Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; telephone: 601-321-1122;
facsimile: 601-965-4340. If you use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other concerned governmental agencies, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested party
concerning this proposed designation of critical habitat for the
Mississippi gopher frog, the DEA of the proposed designation of
critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog, and the amended
required determinations provided in this document. We will consider
information and recommendations from all interested parties. We are
particularly interested in comments concerning:
(1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the
designation, and whether that increase in threat outweighs the benefit
of designation such that the designation of critical habitat may not be
prudent.
(2) Specific information on:
(a) The amount and distribution of Mississippi gopher frog habitat,
(b) What areas, that were occupied at the time of listing (or are
currently occupied) and that contain features essential to the
conservation of the species, should be included in the designation and
why,
(c) Special management considerations or protection that may be
needed in critical habitat areas we are proposing, including managing
for the potential effects of climate change, and
(d) What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential
for the conservation of the species and why.
(3) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
(4) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of
climate change on the Mississippi gopher frog and proposed critical
habitat.
(5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant
impacts of designating any area (especially Unit 1 in St. Tammany
Parish, Louisiana) that may be included in the final designation; in
particular, any impacts on small entities or families, and the benefits
of including or excluding areas that exhibit these impacts.
(6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing for critical
habitat designation should be considered for exclusion under section
4(b)(2) of the Act, and whether the benefits of potentially excluding
any specific area outweigh the benefits of including that area under
section 4(b)(2) of the Act.
(7) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designation
of critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public
participation and understanding, or to better accommodate public
concerns and comments.
(8) The appropriateness of the taxonomic name change of the
Mississippi gopher frog from Rana capito sevosa to Rana sevosa.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We will not accept
comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in
ADDRESSES. We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. You may request
at the top of your document that we withhold personal information such
as your street address, phone number, or e-mail address from public
review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparing the proposed rule and DEA, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business

[[Page 59775]]

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Mississippi Fish and
Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). You may obtain
copies of the proposed rule and the DEA on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov at Docket Number FWS-R4-ES-2010-0024 or by mail
from the Mississippi Field Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).

Background

It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to
the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For more
information on the Mississippi gopher frog, refer to the final rule
listing the species as endangered, which was published in the Federal
Register on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62993). See also the discussion of
habitat in the Physical and Biological Features section below.

Taxonomy and Nomenclature

Subsequent to the listing of the Mississippi gopher frog, taxonomic
research was completed which indicated that the listed entity
(originally listed as a DPS of Rana capito sevosa) is different from
other gopher frogs and warrants acceptance as its own species, Rana
sevosa (Young and Crother 2001, pp. 382-388). The herpetological
scientific community has accepted this taxonomic change, and, as a
result, we announce our intention to revise our List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife to reflect this change in nomenclature. The common
name for Rana sevosa used in the most recent taxonomic treatment for
reptiles and amphibians is dusky gopher frog (Crother et al. 2003, p.
197). However, we will continue to use the common name, Mississippi
gopher frog, to describe the listed entity in order to avoid confusion
with some populations of the eastern Rana capito, for which the common
name of dusky gopher frog is still popularly used.
We also propose to remove the State of Florida from the ``Historic
range'' column of the table entry in 50 CFR 17.11(h) since the areas
currently listed (Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi)
delineated the entire range, including unlisted portions, of the
subspecies, Rana capito sevosa. Therefore, we propose to revise the
``Historic range'' column of the table entry in 50 CFR 17.11(h) to
reflect the historical range of the listed entity, Rana sevosa. As a
result of the name change, the species occupying the eastern portion of
the range that includes the State of Florida is the unlisted Rana
capito.
Geographic Range, Habitat, and Threats
The Mississippi gopher frog has a very limited historical range in
Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. At the time of listing in 2001,
this species occurred at only one site, Glen's Pond, in the DeSoto
National Forest in Harrison County, Mississippi (66 FR 62993).
Mississippi gopher frog habitat includes both upland sandy habitats--
historically forest dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus palustris)--and
isolated temporary wetland breeding sites embedded within the forested
landscape. Adult and subadult frogs spend the majority of their lives
underground in active and abandoned gopher tortoise (Gopherus
polyphemus) burrows, abandoned mammal burrows, and holes in and under
old stumps (Richter et al. 2001, p. 318). Frequent fires are necessary
to maintain the open canopy and ground cover vegetation of their
aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The Mississippi gopher frog was listed
as an endangered species due to its low population size and because of
ongoing threats to the species and its habitat (66 FR 62993). Primary
threats to the species include urbanization and associated development
and road building; fire suppression; two potentially fatal amphibian
diseases known to be present in the population; and the demographic
effects of small population size (66 FR 62993; Sisson 2003, pp. 5, 9;
Overstreet and Lotz 2004, pp. 1-13).
Current Status
Since the time of listing on December 4, 2001, we have used
information from surveys and reports prepared by the Alabama Department
of Conservation and Natural Resources; Louisiana Department of Wildlife
and Fisheries/Natural Heritage Program; Mississippi Museum of Natural
Science/Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks;
Mississippi gopher frog researchers; and Service data and records to
search for additional locations occupied, or with the potential to be
occupied, by the Mississippi gopher frog. After reviewing the available
information from the areas in the three States that were historically
occupied by the Mississippi gopher frog, we determined that most of the
potential restorable habitat for the species occurs in Mississippi.
Wetlands throughout the coastal counties of Mississippi have been
identified by using U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, National
Wetland Inventory maps, Natural Resource Conservation Service county
soil survey maps, and satellite imagery. Although historically the
Mississippi gopher frog was commonly found in the coastal counties of
Mississippi (Allen 1932, p. 9; Neill 1957, p. 49), very few of the
remaining ponds provide potential appropriate breeding habitat (Sisson
2003, p. 6). Nevertheless, two new naturally occurring populations of
the Mississippi gopher frog were found in Jackson County, Mississippi
(Sisson 2004, p. 8). Field surveys conducted in Alabama and Louisiana
have been unsuccessful in documenting the continued existence of
Mississippi gopher frogs in these States (Pechmann et al. 2006, pp. 1-
23; Bailey 2009, pp. 1-2).
Due to the paucity of available suitable habitat for the
Mississippi gopher frog, we have worked with our State, Federal, and
nongovernmental partners to identify and restore upland and wetland
habitats to create appropriate translocation sites for the species. We
have focused our efforts on areas in the State of Mississippi. We
identified 15 ponds and associated forested uplands that we considered
to have restoration potential. These sites occur on the DeSoto National
Forest (Harrison, Forrest, and Perry Counties), the Ward Bayou Wildlife
Management Area (Jackson County), and two privately owned sites
(Jackson County). We have used Glen's Pond and its surrounding uplands
on the DeSoto National Forest, Harrison County, Mississippi, as a guide
in our management efforts. Ongoing habitat management is being
conducted at these areas to restore them as potential relocation sites
for the Mississippi gopher frog. Habitat management at one of the
privately owned sites (Unit 4, below) reached the point where we
believed a translocation effort could be initiated. In 2004, we began
releasing tadpoles and metamorphic frogs at a pond restored for use as
a breeding site (Sisson et al. 2008, p. 16). In December 2007,
Mississippi gopher frogs were heard calling at the site, and one egg
mass was discovered (Baxley and Qualls 2007, pp. 14-15). Another gopher
frog egg mass was found in the pond in 2010 (Lee 2010). As a result, we
consider this site to be currently occupied by the species, bringing
the total number of currently occupied sites to four.
Previous Federal Actions
The Mississippi gopher frog was listed as an endangered species
under the Act on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62993). It was at that time
identified as Rana capito sevosa, a distinct population segment of the
gopher frog Rana capito (see Taxonomy and Nomenclature discussion
above). At the

[[Page 59776]]

time of listing the Service found that designation of critical habitat
was prudent. However, the development of a designation was deferred due
to budgetary and workload constraints.
On November 27, 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity and
Friends of Mississippi Public Lands (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit
against the Service and the Secretary of the Interior for our failure
to timely designate critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog
(Friends of Mississippi Public Lands and Center for Biological
Diversity v. Kempthorne (07-CV-02073)). In a court-approved settlement,
the Service agreed to submit to the Federal Register a new prudency
determination, and if the designation was found to be prudent, a
proposed designation of critical habitat, by May 30, 2010, and a final
designation by May 30, 2011. A proposed rule to designate critical
habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog was published on June 3, 2010
(75 FR 31387).
During the comment period for the June 3, 2010, proposed rule, the
peer reviewers and other commenters indicated they believed that the
amount of critical habitat proposed was insufficient for the
conservation of the Mississippi gopher frog and that additional habitat
should be considered throughout the historical range of the species.
Specifically, information was provided that pointed to limitations in
the data we used to determine the size of individual critical habitat
units and the presence of potential habitat in Louisiana which would
aid in the conservation of Mississippi gopher frogs. Based on this new
information, we asked the plaintiffs to agree to an extension for the
final critical habitat determination. In a modification to the original
settlement signed on May 4, 2011, the court agreed to the Service's
timeline to send a revised proposed critical habitat rule to the
Federal Register by September 15, 2011, and a final critical habitat
rule to the Federal Register by May 30, 2012. Therefore, this proposed
rule revises the June 3, 2010, proposed rule by expanding the areas to
be designated as critical habitat.

Critical Habitat

Background

Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
(1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which
are found those physical or biological features
(a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
(b) Which may require special management considerations or
protection; and
(2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise
relieved, may include regulated taking.
Critical habitat receives protection under section 7 of the Act
through the requirement that Federal agencies ensure, in consultation
with the Service, that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is
not likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. The designation of critical habitat does not affect
land ownership or establish a refuge, wilderness, reserve, preserve, or
other conservation area. Such designation does not allow the government
or public to access private lands. Such designation does not require
implementation of restoration, recovery, or enhancement measures by
non-Federal landowners. Where a landowner seeks or requests Federal
agency funding or authorization for an action that may affect a listed
species or critical habitat, the consultation requirements of section
7(a)(2) would apply, but even in the event of a destruction or adverse
modification finding, the obligation of the Federal action agency and
the landowner is not to restore or recover the species, but to
implement reasonable and prudent alternatives to avoid destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
Under the first prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time it
was listed are included in a critical habitat designation if they
contain the physical and biological features (1) which are essential to
the conservation of the species and (2) which may require special
management considerations or protection. For these areas, critical
habitat designations identify, to the extent known using the best
scientific and commercial data available, those physical or biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species (such as
space, food, cover, and protected habitat). In identifying those
physical and biological features within an area, we focus on the
principal biological or physical constituent elements (primary
constituent elements such as roost sites, nesting grounds, seasonal
wetlands, water quality, tide, soil type) that are essential to the
conservation of the species. Primary constituent elements are the
elements of physical or biological features that, when laid out in the
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for a species'
life-history processes, are essential to the conservation of the
species.
Under the second prong of the Act's definition of critical habitat,
we can designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area
occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon a determination
that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species. For
example, an area currently occupied by the species but that was not
occupied at the time of listing may be essential to the conservation of
the species and may be included in the critical habitat designation. We
designate critical habitat in areas outside the geographic area
occupied by a species only when a designation limited to its range
would be inadequate to ensure the conservation of the species.
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)),
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria,
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical
habitat.
When we determine which areas should be designated as critical
habitat, our primary source of information is generally the information
developed during the listing process for the

[[Page 59777]]

species. Additional information sources may include the recovery plan
for the species, articles in peer-reviewed journals, conservation plans
developed by States and counties, scientific status surveys and
studies, biological assessments, other unpublished materials, or
experts' opinions or personal knowledge.
Habitat is dynamic, and species may move from one area to another
over time. We recognize that critical habitat designated at a
particular point in time may not include all of the habitat areas that
we may later determine are necessary for the recovery of the species.
For these reasons, a critical habitat designation does not signal that
habitat outside the designated critical habitat area is unimportant or
may not be needed for recovery of the species. Areas that are important
to the conservation of the species, both inside and outside the
critical habitat designation, will continue to be subject to: (1)
Conservation actions implemented under section 7(a)(1) of the Act, (2)
regulatory protections afforded by the requirement in section 7(a)(2)
of the Act for Federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, and (3) the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act if actions
occurring in these areas may affect the species. Federally funded or
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some
cases. These protections and conservation tools will continue to
contribute to recovery of this species. Similarly, critical habitat
designations made on the basis of the best available information at the
time of designation will not control the direction and substance of
future recovery plans, habitat conservation plans (HCPs), or other
species conservation planning efforts if new information available at
the time of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.

Prudency Determination

Section 4 of the Act, as amended, and implementing regulations (50
CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent and
determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time the
species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations
at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state that the designation of critical habitat
is not prudent when one or both of the following situations exist: (1)
The species is threatened by taking or other activity and the
identification of critical habitat can be expected to increase the
degree of threat to the species; or (2) the designation of critical
habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
There is no documentation that the Mississippi gopher frog is
threatened by collection. Although human visitation to Mississippi
gopher frog habitat carries with it the possibility of introducing
infectious disease and potentially increasing other threats where the
frogs occur, the locations of important recovery areas are already
accessible to the public through Web sites, reports, online databases,
and other easily accessible venues. Therefore, identifying and mapping
critical habitat is unlikely to increase threats to the species or its
habitat.
In the absence of finding that the designation of critical habitat
would increase threats to the species, if there are any benefits to a
critical habitat designation, then a finding that designation is
prudent is warranted. The potential benefits of critical habitat to the
Mississippi gopher frog include: (1) Triggering consultation, under
section 7 of the Act, in new areas for actions in which there may be a
Federal nexus where it would not otherwise occur, because, for example,
it is or has become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2)
focusing conservation activities on the most essential features and
areas; (3) providing educational benefits to State or county
governments or private entities; and (4) preventing people from causing
inadvertent harm to the species.
Therefore, because we have determined that the designation of
critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to the
species and may provide some measure of benefit, we find that the
designation of critical habitat is prudent for the Mississippi gopher
frog.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Mississippi Gopher Frog

Physical and Biological Features

In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the
geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing to
designate as critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological
features that are essential to the conservation of the species and
which may require special management considerations or protection.
These include, but are not limited to:
(1) Space for individual and population growth and for normal
behavior;
(2) Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or
physiological requirements;
(3) Cover or shelter;
(4) Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development)
of offspring; and
(5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are
representative of the historical, geographic, and ecological
distributions of a species.
We derive the specific physical and biological features required
for the Mississippi gopher frog from studies of this species' habitat,
ecology, and life history as described below. Additional information
can be found in the final listing rule published in the Federal
Register on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62993). To identify the physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of the
Mississippi gopher frog, we have relied on current conditions at
locations where the species survives, the limited information available
on this species and its close relatives, as well as factors associated
with the decline of other amphibians that occupy similar habitats in
the lower Southeastern Coastal Plain (Service 2001, pp. 62993-63002).
We have determined that the Mississippi gopher frog requires the
following physical and biological features:
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Mississippi gopher frogs are terrestrial amphibians endemic to the
longleaf pine ecosystem. They spend most of their lives underground in
forested habitat consisting of fire-maintained, open-canopied woodlands
historically dominated by longleaf pine (naturally occurring slash pine
(P. elliotti) in wetter areas). Optimal habitat is created when
management includes frequent fires which support a diverse ground cover
of herbaceous plants, both in the uplands and in the breeding ponds
(Hedman et al. 2000, p. 233; Kirkman et al. 2000, p. 373).
Historically, fire-tolerant longleaf pine dominated the uplands;
however, much of the original habitat has been converted to pine (often
loblolly (P. taeda) or slash pine) plantations and has become a closed-
canopy forest unsuitable as habitat for gopher frogs (Roznik and
Johnson 2009a, p. 265).
During the breeding season, Mississippi gopher frogs leave their
subterranean retreats in the uplands and migrate to their breeding
sites during rains associated with passing cold fronts. Breeding sites
are ephemeral (seasonally flooded) isolated ponds (not connected to
other water bodies) located

[[Page 59778]]

in the uplands. Both forested uplands and isolated wetlands (see
further discussion of isolated wetlands in ``Sites for Breeding,
Reproduction, and Rearing of Offspring'' section) are needed to provide
space for individual and population growth and normal behavior.
After breeding, adult Mississippi gopher frogs leave pond sites
during major rainfall events. Metamorphic frogs follow, once their
development is complete. Limited data are available on the distance
between the wetland breeding and upland terrestrial habitats of post-
larval and adult Mississippi gopher frogs. Richter et al. (2001, pp.
316-321) used radio transmitters to track a total of 13 adult frogs at
Glen's Pond, the primary Mississippi gopher frog breeding site, located
in Harrison County, Mississippi. The farthest movement recorded was 299
meters (m) (981 feet (ft)) by a frog tracked for 63 days from the time
of its exit from the breeding site (Richter et al. 2001, p. 318). Tupy
and Pechmann (2011, p. 1) conducted a more recent radio telemetry study
of 17 Mississippi gopher frogs captured at Glen's Pond. The maximum
distance traveled by one of these frogs to its underground refuge was
240 m (787 ft).
As a group, gopher frogs (Rana capito and Rana sevosa) are capable
of moving surprising distances. In a study in the sandhills of North
Carolina, the post-breeding movements of 17 gopher frogs were tracked
(Humphries and Sisson 2011, p. 1). The maximum distance a frog was
found from its breeding site was 3.5 kilometers (km) (2.2 miles (mi)).
In Florida, gopher frogs have been found up to 2 km (1.2 mi) from their
breeding sites (Carr 1940, p. 64; Franz et al. 1988, p. 82). The
frequency of these long-distance movements is not known (see discussion
in Roznik et al. 2009, p. 192). A number of other gopher frog studies
have either tracked frogs or observed them in upland habitat at varying
distances from their breeding ponds. These movements range from between
the minimum of 240 m observed by Tupy and Pechmann (2011, p. 1) and the
maximum of 3.5 km (2.2 mi) observed by Humphries and Sisson (2011, p.
1). These include studies or observations by Carr (1940), Franz et al.
(1988), Phillips (1995), Rostal (1999), Neufeldt and Birkhead (2001),
Blihovde (2006), Roznik (2007), and Roznik and Johnson (2009a and
2009b).
It is difficult to interpret habitat use for the Mississippi gopher
frog from these available data. Movements are generally between
breeding sites and belowground refugia. Distances moved are likely to
be tied to the abundance and distribution of appropriate refugia, but
these data are limited. We have assumed that the Mississippi gopher
frog can move farther distances, and may use a larger area, than the
existing data for the species indicate. Therefore, we have taken the
mean of all the gopher frog movement data available to us (600 m (1,969
ft)) and are using this value when constructing the area around a
breeding pond used by a Mississippi gopher frog population.
Due to the low number of occupied sites for the species, we are
conducting habitat management at potential relocation sites with the
hope of establishing new populations (see discussion above at
Geographic Range, Habitat, and Threats and Status sections). When
possible, we are managing wetlands within 1,000 m (3,281 ft) of each
other, in these areas, as a block in order to create multiple breeding
sites and metapopulation structure (defined as neighboring local
populations close enough to one another that dispersing individuals
could be exchanged (gene flow) at least once per generation) in support
of recovery (Marsh and Trenham 2001, p. 40; Richter et al. 2003, p.
177).
Due to fragmentation and destruction of habitat, the current range
of naturally occurring Mississippi gopher frogs has been reduced to
three sites. In addition, optimal terrestrial habitat for gopher frogs
is considered to be within burrows of the gopher tortoise, a rare and
declining species that is listed as threatened under the Act within the
range of the Mississippi gopher frog. Therefore, this specialized
microhabitat has been reduced as well as the surrounding forested
habitat. Fragmentation and loss of the frog's habitat has subjected the
species' small, isolated populations to genetic isolation and reduction
of space for reproduction, development of young, and population
maintenance; thus, the likelihood of population extinction has
increased (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001, pp. 62993-63002).
Genetic variation and diversity within a species are essential for
recovery, adaptation to environmental changes, and long-term viability
(capability to live, reproduce, and develop) (Harris 1984, pp. 93-107).
Long-term viability is founded on the existence of numerous
interbreeding local populations throughout the range (Harris 1984, pp.
93-107).
Connectivity of Mississippi gopher frog breeding and nonbreeding
habitat within the geographic area occupied by the species must be
maintained to support the species' survival (Semlitsch 2002, p. 624;
Harper et al. 2008, p. 1205). Additionally, connectivity of these sites
with other areas outside the geographic area occupied currently by the
Mississippi gopher frog is essential for the conservation of the
species (Semlitsch 2002, p. 624; Harper et al. 2008, p. 1205). It
allows for gene flow among local populations within a metapopulation,
which enhances the likelihood of metapopulation persistence and allows
for recolonization of sites that are lost due to drought, disease, or
other factors (Hanski and Gilpin 1991, pp. 4-6).
Based on the biological information and needs discussed above, we
identify ephemeral isolated ponds and associated forested uplands, and
connectivity of these areas, to be physical and biological features
necessary to accommodate breeding, growth, and other normal behaviors
of the Mississippi gopher frog and to promote genetic flow within the
species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Mississippi gopher frog tadpoles eat periphyton (microscopic algae,
bacteria, and protozoans) from surfaces of emergent vegetation or along
the pond bottom, as is typical of pond-type tadpoles (Duellman and
Trueb 1986, p. 159). Juvenile and adult gopher frogs are carnivorous.
Insects found in their stomachs have included carabid (Pasimachus sp.)
and scarabaeid (genera Canthon sp. and Ligryus sp.) beetles (Netting
and Goin 1942, p. 259) and Ceuthophilus crickets (Milstrey 1984, p.
10). Mississippi gopher frogs are gape-limited (limited by the size of
the jaw opening) predators with a diet probably similar to that
reported for other gopher frogs, including frogs, toads, beetles,
hemipterans, grasshoppers, spiders, roaches, and earthworms (Dickerson
1969, p. 196; Carr 1940, p. 64). Within the pine uplands, a diverse and
abundant herbaceous layer consisting of native species, maintained by
frequent fires, is important to maintain the prey base for juvenile and
adult Mississippi gopher frogs. Wetland water quality and an open
canopy (Skelly et al. 2002, p. 983) are important to the maintenance of
the periphyton that serves as a food source for Mississippi gopher frog
tadpoles.
Therefore, based on the biological information and needs discussed
above, we identify ephemeral, isolated ponds with emergent vegetation,
and open-canopied pine uplands with a diverse herbaceous layer, as
physical and biological features necessary to provide for adequate food
sources for the Mississippi gopher frog.

[[Page 59779]]

Cover or Shelter
Amphibians need to maintain moist skin for respiration (breathing)
and osmoregulation (controlling the amounts of water and salts in their
bodies) (Duellman and Trueb 1986, pp. 197-222). Since Mississippi
gopher frogs disperse from their aquatic breeding sites to the uplands
where they live as adults, desiccation (drying out) can be a limiting
factor in their movements. Thus, it is important that areas connecting
their wetland and terrestrial habitats are protected in order to
provide cover and appropriate moisture regimes during their migration.
Richter et al. (2001, pp. 317-318) found that during migration,
Mississippi gopher frogs used clumps of grass or leaf litter for
refuge. Protection of this connecting habitat may be particularly
important for juveniles as they move out of the breeding pond for the
first time. Studies of migratory success in post-metamorphic amphibians
have demonstrated the importance of high levels of survival of these
individuals to population maintenance and persistence (Rothermel 2004,
pp. 1544-1545).
Both adult and juvenile Mississippi gopher frogs spend most of
their lives underground in forested uplands (Richter et al. 2001, p.
318). Underground retreats include gopher tortoise burrows, small
mammal burrows, stump holes, and root mounds of fallen trees (Richter
et al. 2001, p. 318). Availability of appropriate underground sites is
especially important for juveniles in their first year. Survival of
juvenile gopher frogs in northcentral Florida was found to be dependent
on their use of underground refugia (Roznik and Johnson 2009b, p. 431).
Mortality for a frog occupying an underground refuge was estimated to
be only 4 percent of the likelihood of mortality for a frog not
occupying an underground refuge (Roznik and Johnson 2009b, p. 434).
Therefore, based on the biological information and needs discussed
above, we identify appropriate connectivity habitat between wetland and
upland sites (to support survival during migration), and a variety of
underground retreats such as gopher tortoise burrows, small mammal
burrows, stump holes, and root mounds of fallen trees within non-
wetland habitats (to provide cover and shelter), to be essential
physical and biological features for the Mississippi gopher frog.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Mississippi gopher frog breeding sites are isolated ponds that dry
completely on a cyclic basis. Faulkner (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2001, p. 62994) conducted hydrologic research at the Glen's Pond site
on DeSoto National Forest, Harrison County, Mississippi. He described
the pond as a depressional feature on a topographic high. The dominant
source of water to the pond is rainfall within a small, localized
watershed that extends 61 to 122 m (200 to 400 ft) from the pond's
center. Substantial winter rains are needed to ensure that the pond
fills sufficiently to allow hatching, development, and metamorphosis
(change to adults) of larvae. The timing and frequency of rainfall are
critical to the successful reproduction and recruitment of Mississippi
gopher frogs. Adult frogs move to wetland breeding sites during heavy
rain events, usually from January to late March (Richter and Seigel
2002, p. 964).
Studies at Glen's Pond indicate that this breeding pond is
approximately 1.5 ha (3.8ac) when filled and attains a maximum depth of
1.1 m (3.6 ft) (Thurgate and Pechmann 2007, p. 1846). The pond is hard-
bottomed, has an open canopy, and contains emergent and submergent
vegetation. It is especially important that a breeding pond have an
open canopy: though the mechanism is unclear, it is believed an open
canopy is critical to tadpole development. Experiments conducted by
Thurgate and Pechmann (2007, pp. 1845-1852) demonstrated the lethal and
sublethal effects of canopy closure on Mississippi gopher frog
tadpoles. The general habitat attributes of the other three Mississippi
gopher frog breeding ponds are similar to those of Glen's Pond. Female
Mississippi gopher frogs attach their eggs to rigid vertical stems of
emergent vegetation (Young 1997, p. 48). Breeding ponds typically dry
in early to mid-summer, but on occasion have remained wet until early
fall (Richter and Seigel 1998, p. 24). Breeding ponds of closely
related gopher frogs in Alabama and Florida have similar structure and
function to those of the Mississippi gopher frog (Bailey 1990, p. 29;
Palis 1998, p. 217; Greenberg 2001, p. 74).
An unpolluted wetland with water free of predaceous fish, sediment,
pesticides, and chemicals associated with road runoff is important for
egg development, tadpole growth and development, and successful mating
and egg laying by adult frogs.
Therefore, based on the biological information and needs discussed
above, we identify isolated ponds with hard bottoms, open canopies,
emergent vegetation, and water free of predaceous fish, sediment,
pesticides, and chemicals associated with road runoff to be physical
and biological features essential for breeding and development of the
Mississippi gopher frog.
Primary Constituent Elements for the Mississippi Gopher Frog
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the Mississippi gopher frog in areas occupied at the
time of listing, focusing on the features' primary constituent
elements. We consider primary constituent elements to be the elements
of physical and biological features that, when laid out in the
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement to provide for a species'
life-history processes, are essential to the conservation of the
species.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features and habitat characteristics required to sustain the species'
life-history processes, we determine that the primary constituent
elements specific to the Mississippi gopher frog are:
(1) Primary Constituent Element 1--Ephemeral wetland habitat.
Breeding ponds, geographically isolated from other waterbodies and
embedded in forests historically dominated by longleaf pine
communities, that are small (generally <0.4 to 4.0 ha (<1 to 10 ac),
ephemeral, and acidic. Specific conditions necessary in breeding ponds
to allow for successful reproduction of Mississippi gopher frogs are:
(a) An open canopy with emergent herbaceous vegetation for egg
attachment;
(b) An absence of large, predatory fish which prey on frog larvae;
(c) Water quality such that frogs, their eggs, or larvae are not
exposed to pesticides or chemicals and sediment associated with road
runoff; and
(d) Surface water that lasts for a minimum of 195 days during the
breeding season to allow a sufficient period for larvae to hatch,
mature, and metamorphose.
(2) Primary Constituent Element 2--Upland forested nonbreeding
habitat. Forests historically dominated by longleaf pine, adjacent and
accessible to and from breeding ponds, that is maintained by fires
frequent enough to support an open canopy and abundant herbaceous
ground cover and gopher tortoise burrows, small mammal burrows, stump
holes, or other underground habitat that the Mississippi gopher frog
depends upon for food, shelter, and protection from the elements and
predation.

[[Page 59780]]

(3) Primary Constituent Element 3--Upland connectivity habitat.
Accessible upland habitat between breeding and nonbreeding habitats to
allow for Mississippi gopher frog movements between and among such
sites. It is characterized by an open canopy and abundant native
herbaceous species and subsurface structure which provides shelter for
Mississippi gopher frogs during seasonal movements, such as that
created by deep litter cover, clumps of grass, or burrows.
With this proposed designation of critical habitat, we intend to
identify the physical and biological features essential to the
conservation of the species, through the identification of the
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement of the primary constituent
elements sufficient to support the life-history processes of the
species. All proposed critical habitat units are within the species'
historical geographic range and contain sufficient primary constituent
elements to support at least one life-history function of the
Mississippi gopher frog. Four units/subunits (Unit 2, Subunit A; Unit
4, Subunit A; Unit 5, Subunit A; and Unit 7) are currently occupied by
the species; of these four units/subunits, only Unit 2, Subunit A was
occupied at the time of listing. All of the other units/subunits
proposed as critical habitat are currently unoccupied, but contain
sufficient primary constituent elements to support all the life-history
functions essential for the conservation of the species with the
exception of Unit 1. Unit 1 only contains one primary constituent
element (ephemeral wetland habitat). This unit is needed as a future
site for frog reestablishment and is essential for the conservation of
the species. Within Unit 1, the other primary constituent elements
could be restored with a reasonable level of effort.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of
listing contain features that are essential to the conservation of the
species and which may require special management considerations or
protection.
All areas proposed for designation as critical habitat will require
some level of management to address the current and future threats to
the Mississippi gopher frog and to maintain or restore the primary
constituent elements. The features essential to the conservation of
this species may require special management considerations or
protection to reduce various threats, in or adjacent to proposed
critical habitat, that may affect one or more of the primary
constituent elements. Special management of ephemeral wetland breeding
sites (Primary Constituent Element 1) will be needed to ensure that
these areas provide water quantity, quality, and appropriate
hydroperiod; cover; and absence from levels of predation and disease
that can affect population persistence. In nonbreeding upland forested
areas (Primary Constituent Elements 2 and 3), special management will
be needed to ensure an open canopy and abundant herbaceous ground
cover; underground habitat for adult and subadult frogs to occupy; and
sufficient cover as frogs migrate to and from breeding sites.
A detailed discussion of activities influencing the Mississippi
gopher frog and its habitat can be found in the final listing rule (66
FR 62993; December 4, 2001). The features essential to the conservation
of this species may require special management considerations or
protection to reduce threats posed by: Land use conversions, primarily
urban development and conversion to agriculture and pine plantations;
stump removal and other soil-disturbing activities that destroy the
belowground structure within forest soils; fire suppression and low
fire frequencies; wetland destruction and degradation; random effects
of drought or floods; off-road vehicle use; use of gas, water,
electrical power, and sewer easements; and activities that disturb
underground refugia used by Mississippi gopher frogs for foraging,
protection from predators, and shelter from the elements. Other
activities that may affect primary constituent elements in the proposed
critical habitat units include those listed in the Effects of Critical
Habitat Designation section below.
Special management considerations or protection are required within
critical habitat areas to address the threats identified above.
Management activities that could ameliorate these threats include (but
are not limited to): Maintaining critical habitat areas as forested
pine habitat (preferably longleaf pine); conducting forestry management
using prescribed burning, avoiding the use of beds when planting trees,
and reducing planting densities to create or maintain an open canopied
forest with abundant herbaceous ground cover; maintaining forest
underground structure such as gopher tortoise burrows, small mammal
burrows, and stump holes; and protecting ephemeral wetland breeding
sites from chemical and physical changes to the site that could occur
by presence or construction of ditches or roads.

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

As required by section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act, we use the best
scientific and commercial data available to designate critical habitat.
We review available information pertaining to the habitat requirements
of the species. In accordance with the Act and its implementing
regulation at 50 CFR 424.12(e), we consider whether designating
additional areas--outside those currently occupied as well as those
occupied at the time of listing--are necessary to ensure the
conservation of the species. We are proposing to designate critical
habitat in areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at
the time of listing in 2001. We also are proposing to designate
specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by the species at
the time of listing, including those that are currently occupied, and
others which are currently unoccupied. Most of the unoccupied areas
considered for inclusion are part of ongoing recovery initiatives for
this species. All areas proposed for critical habitat designation
outside the area occupied by the species at the time of listing are
considered to be essential for the conservation of the species.
Mississippi gopher frogs require small, isolated, acidic,
depressional standing bodies of freshwater for breeding, upland pine
forested habitat that has an open canopy maintained by fire for
nonbreeding habitat, and upland connectivity habitat areas that allow
for movement between nonbreeding and breeding sites. The range of the
Mississippi gopher frog has been severely curtailed, occupied habitats
are limited and isolated, and population sizes are extremely small and
at risk of extirpation and extinction from stochastic events that occur
as periodic natural events or existing or potential human-induced
events (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001, pp. 62993-63002). To
reduce the risk of extinction through these processes, it is important
to establish multiple protected subpopulations across the landscape
(Soul[eacute] and Simberloff 1986, pp. 25-35; Wiens 1996, pp. 73-74).
We considered the following criteria in the selection of areas that
contain the essential features for the Mississippi gopher frog when
designating units: (1) The historical distribution of the species; (2)
presence of open-canopied, isolated wetlands; (3) presence of open-
canopied, upland pine forest in sufficient quantity around each wetland
location to allow for sufficient survival and recruitment to maintain a
breeding population over the long term;

[[Page 59781]]

(4) open-canopied, forested connectivity habitat between wetland and
upland sites; and (5) multiple isolated wetlands in upland habitat that
would allow for the development of metapopulations.
We began our determination of which areas to designate as critical
habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog with an assessment of the
critical life-history components of the Mississippi gopher frog, as
they relate to habitat. We then evaluated the Mississippi gopher frog
in the context of its historical (Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi)
and current (Mississippi) distribution to establish what portion of its
range still contains the physical and biological features that are
essential to the conservation of the species. We reviewed the available
information pertaining to historical and current distributions, life
histories, and habitat requirements of this species. Our sources
included surveys, unpublished reports, and peer-reviewed scientific
literature prepared by the Alabama Department of Conservation and
Natural Resources, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Parks, and Mississippi gopher frog researchers; Service data and
publications such as the final listing rule for the Mississippi gopher
frog; and Geographic Information System (GIS) data (such as species
occurrence data, habitat data, land use, topography, digital aerial
photography, and ownership maps).
In Alabama, we were unable to identify habitat that met the
requirements for sustaining the essential life-history functions of the
species. No historical breeding sites for the species are known in
Alabama. The only record is from 1922 in Mobile County near Mobile Bay.
Bailey (1994, p. 5) visited this general area and noted that, although
residential development and fire suppression had drastically altered
the upland habitat, large longleaf pines still present in lawns and
vacant lots indicated that the area was formerly suitable habitat for
gopher frogs. Ponds that have potential as breeding sites for the
Mississippi gopher frog have been identified in Choctaw, Mobile, and
Washington Counties, Alabama, using aerial imagery (Bailey 2009, p. 1).
However, no Mississippi gopher frogs have been found at these sites,
and at this time, we do not consider them to be essential to the
conservation of the species.
In Louisiana, we assessed the condition of the last known breeding
pond for the species there (Thomas and Ballew 1997, p. 4-5). We found
that the pond, and a series of others, contained the habitat
requirements for Primary Constituent Element 1.
Within the historical distribution of the frog in Mississippi,
wetlands throughout the coastal counties were identified using U.S.
Geological Survey topographic maps, National Wetland Inventory maps,
Natural Resource Conservation Service county soil survey maps, and
satellite imagery. Habitat with the best potential of establishing the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
Mississippi gopher frog were concentrated on the DeSoto National Forest
in Forrest, Harrison, and Perry Counties in southern Mississippi. Some
additional sites were found in Jackson County on Federal land being
managed by the State as a Wildlife Management Area and on private land
being managed as a wetland mitigation bank. Habitat restoration efforts
have been successful in establishing at least one of the primary
constituent elements on each of these sites, and management is
continuing, with the goal of establishing all of the primary
constituent elements at all of the sites.
Only one subunit (Unit 2, subunit A) is known to have been occupied
at the time of listing in December 2001. We believe this occupied area,
which we are proposing as critical habitat, contains sufficient primary
constituent elements to support life-history functions essential to the
conservation of the species. Sites not known to be occupied at the time
of listing in December 2001 are also proposed as critical habitat.
These sites are all within the historical range of the Mississippi
gopher frog. The inclusion of these areas will provide habitat for
population translocation and will decrease the risk of extinction of
the species. Three units/subunits (Unit 4, subunit A, Unit 5, subunit
A, and Unit 7) are currently occupied by the Mississippi gopher frog,
but were discovered subsequent to the listing of the species. Eleven
units/subunits, not known to be occupied at the time of listing, are
currently unoccupied. One of the units (Unit 1) represents a historical
record for the Mississippi gopher frog. The historical occupancy status
of the other 10 units/subunits is unknown. All 14 units/subunits not
known to be occupied at the time of listing, which were unoccupied or
not known to be occupied at that time, are being proposed as critical
habitat because they are considered essential for the conservation of
the species. The Mississippi gopher frog is at high risk of extirpation
from stochastic events, such as disease or drought, and from
demographic factors such as inbreeding depression. The establishment of
additional populations beyond the single site known to be occupied at
listing is critical to protect the species from extinction and provide
for the species' eventual recovery.
We have determined that, with proper protection and management, the
areas we are proposing for critical habitat are needed for the
conservation of the species based on our current understanding of the
species' requirements. However, as discussed in the Critical Habitat
section above, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may
not include all habitat areas that we may eventually determine are
necessary for the recovery of the species and that for this reason, a
critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the
designated area is unimportant or may not promote the recovery of the
species.
We delineated the critical habitat unit boundaries using the
following steps:
(1) We used digital aerial photography using ArcMap 9.3.1 to map
the specific location of the breeding site occupied by the Mississippi
gopher frog at the time of listing, and those locations of breeding
sites outside the geographic area occupied by the species at the time
it was listed, both occupied and not occupied, that were determined to
be essential for the conservation of the species.
(2) We delineated proposed critical habitat units by buffering the
above locations by a radius of 650 m (2,133 ft). We believe the area
created would protect the majority of a Mississippi gopher frog
population's breeding and upland habitat and incorporate all primary
constituent elements within the critical habitat unit. We chose the
value of 650 m (2,133 ft) by using the mean farthest distance movement
(600 m (1,969 ft)) from data collected during multiple studies of the
gopher frog group (see discussion under Space for Individual and
Population Growth and for Normal Behavior) and adding 50 m (164 ft) to
this distance to minimize the edge effects of the surrounding land use
(see discussion in Semlitsch and Bodie 2003, pp. 1222-1223).
(3) We used aerial imagery and ArcMap to connect critical habitat
areas within 1,000 m (3,281 ft) of each other to create routes for gene
flow between breeding sites and metapopulation structure (see
discussion under Space for Individual and Population Growth and for
Normal Behavior).
When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made
every effort to avoid including developed areas, such as lands covered
by buildings, pavement, and other structures, because such lands lack

[[Page 59782]]

physical and biological features necessary for the Mississippi gopher
frog. The scale of the maps we prepared under the parameters for
publication within the Code of Federal Regulations may not reflect the
exclusion of such developed lands. Any such lands inadvertently left
inside critical habitat boundaries shown on the maps of this proposed
rule have been excluded by text in the proposed rule and are not
proposed for designation as critical habitat. Therefore, if the
critical habitat is finalized as proposed, a Federal action involving
these lands would not trigger section 7 consultation with respect to
critical habitat and the requirement of no adverse modification unless
the specific action would affect the physical and biological features
in the adjacent critical habitat.
In summary, we are proposing areas for critical habitat designation
that we have determined were occupied at the time of listing and
contain sufficient elements of physical and biological features to
support life-history processes essential to the conservation of the
species, and areas outside the geographic area occupied at the time of
listing that we have determined are essential for the conservation the
Mississippi gopher frog. Twelve units, three of which are divided into
two subunits each, were proposed for designation based on sufficient
elements of physical and biological features present to support the
Mississippi gopher frog life-history processes. Some units/subunits
contained all of the identified elements of physical and biological
features and supported multiple life-history processes. Other units
contained only some elements of the physical and biological features
necessary to support the Mississippi gopher frog's particular use of
that habitat.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

We are proposing 15 units/subunits as critical habitat for the
Mississippi gopher frog. The critical habitat areas we describe below
constitute our current best assessment of areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog. Table 1
below shows the specific occupancy status of each unit/subunit at the
time of listing and currently.

Table 1--Occupancy of Mississippi Gopher Frog Proposed Critical Habitat Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently occupied and Currently occupied but Currently unoccupied and
Unit Parish/county known to be occupied at not known to be occupied not known to be occupied
the time of listing at the time of listing at the time of listing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISIANA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................... St. Tammany.................. ........................ ........................ X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISSISSIPPI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2, Subunit A............................... Harrison..................... X ........................ ........................
2, Subunit B............................... Harrison..................... ........................ ........................ X
3.......................................... Jackson...................... ........................ ........................ X
4, Subunit A............................... Jackson...................... ........................ X ........................
4, Subunit B............................... Jackson...................... ........................ ........................ X
5, Subunit A............................... Jackson...................... ........................ X ........................
5, Subunit B............................... Jackson...................... ........................ ........................ X
6.......................................... Jackson...................... ........................ ........................ X
7.......................................... Jackson...................... ........................ X ........................
8.......................................... Forrest...................... ........................ ........................ X
9.......................................... Forrest...................... ........................ ........................ X
10......................................... Perry........................ ........................ ........................ X
11......................................... Perry........................ ........................ ........................ X
12......................................... Perry........................ ........................ ........................ X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 2 provides the approximate area and ownership of each
proposed critical habitat unit. Hectare and acre values were
individually computer-generated using GIS software, rounded to nearest
whole number, and then summed.

Table 2--Proposed Critical Habitat Units With Area Estimates (Hectares (ha) and Acres (ac)) and Land Ownership for the Mississippi Gopher frog. Area Sizes May Not Sum Due to Rounding
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership
Unit Parish/county ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total area
Federal State Private
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISIANA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. St. Tammany.......... ................................ ................................ 667 ha (1,649 ac)............... 667 ha (1,649 ac).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISSISSIPPI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2, Subunit A...................... Harrison............. 109 ha (269 ac)................. ................................ 24 ha (59 ac)................... 133 ha (329 ac).
2, Subunit B...................... Harrison............. 436 ha (1,077 ac)............... ................................ 3 ha (7 ac)..................... 439 ha (1,085 ac).
3................................. Harrison............. 133 ha (329 ac)................. ................................ ................................ 133 ha (329 ac).
4, Subunit A...................... Jackson.............. ................................ ................................ 133 ha (329 ac)................. 133 ha (329 ac).
4, Subunit B...................... Jackson.............. 52 ha (129 ac).................. ................................ 113 ha (279 ac)................. 165 ha (408 ac).
5, Subunit A...................... Jackson.............. ................................ ................................ 133 ha (329 ac)................. 133 ha (329 ac).

[[Page 59783]]

5, Subunit B...................... Jackson.............. ................................ ................................ 56 ha (138 ac).................. 56 ha (138 ac).
6................................. Jackson.............. 133 ha (329 ac)................. ................................ ................................ 133 ha (329 ac).
7................................. Jackson.............. ................................ 116 ha (287 ac)................. 17 ha (42 ac)................... 133 ha (329 ac).
8................................. Forrest.............. 133 ha (329 ac)................. ................................ ................................ 133 ha (329 ac).
9................................. Forrest.............. 131 ha (324 ac)................. ................................ 2 ha (5 ac)..................... 133 ha (329 ac).
10................................ Perry................ 135 ha (334 ac)................. ................................ 47 ha (116 ac).................. 182 ha (450 ac).
11................................ Perry................ 129 ha (319 ac)................. ................................ 4 ha (10 ac).................... 133 ha (329 ac).
12................................ Perry................ 125 ha (309 ac)................. ................................ 8 ha (20 ac).................... 133 ha (329 ac).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. All Parishes and 1,516 ha (3,746 ac)............. 116 ha (287 ac)................. 1,207 ha (2,983 ac)............. 2,839 ha (7,015 ac).
Counties.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We present brief descriptions of all units and reasons why they
meet the definition of critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher
frog, below.

Unit 1: St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana

Unit 1 encompasses 667 ha (1,649 ac) on private lands in St.
Tammany Parish, Louisiana. This unit is located north and south of
State Hwy. 36, approximately 3.1 km (1.9 mi) west of State Hwy. 41 and
the town of Hickory, Louisiana. Unit 1 is not within the geographic
area occupied by the species at the time of listing. It is currently
unoccupied; however, one of the ponds in the unit is where gopher frogs
were last observed in Louisiana in 1965. We believe this unit is
essential for the conservation of the species because it provides
additional habitat for population expansion outside of the core
population areas in Mississippi. Unit 1 consists of five ponds
(ephemeral wetland habitat) and their associated uplands. If
Mississippi gopher frogs are translocated to the site, the five areas
are in close enough proximity to each other that gopher frogs could
move between them. The uplands associated with the ponds do not
currently contain the essential biological and physical features of
critical habitat; however, we believe them to be restorable with
reasonable effort. We believe this unit provides potential for
establishing new breeding ponds and metapopulation structure which will
support recovery of the species. Maintaining these ponds as suitable
breeding habitat, into which Mississippi gopher frogs could be
translocated, is essential to decrease the risk of extinction of the
species resulting from stochastic events and to provide for the
species' eventual recovery. This unit is proposed as critical habitat
because it is essential for the conservation of the species.
Unit 1 is currently managed as industrial forest land. Threats to
elements of the essential physical and biological features of habitat
for the Mississippi gopher frog within this unit include the potential
of: hydrologic changes resulting from ditches, or adjacent highways and
roads that could alter the ecology of the ponds; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas, water,
electrical power, and sewer easements; and agricultural and urban and
residential development (see also discussion in Special Management
Considerations or Protection section).

Unit 2: Harrison County, Mississippi

Unit 2 comprises two subunits encompassing 572 ha (1,413 ac) on
Federal and private lands in Harrison County, Mississippi. This unit,
between U.S. Hwy. 49 and Old Hwy. 67, is approximately 224 m (735 ft)
northeast of the Biloxi River. It is located approximately 2.8 km (1.8
mi) east of U.S. Hwy. 49 and approximately 2.3 km (1.4 mi) west of Old
Hwy. 67. Within this unit, approximately 545 ha (1,347 ac) are in the
DeSoto National Forest and 27 ha (67 ac) are in private ownership.
Subunit A
Unit 2, Subunit A encompasses 133 ha (329 ac) around the only
breeding pond (Glen's Pond) known for the Mississippi gopher frog when
it was listed in 2001; as a result, it is within the geographic area of
the species occupied at the time of listing. In addition, this subunit
contains all elements of the essential physical and biological features
of the species. The majority of this subunit (109 ha (269 ac)) is on
the DeSoto National Forest, with the remainder of the subunit (24 ha
(59 ac)) in private ownership. This subunit is proposed as critical
habitat because it was occupied at the time of listing, is currently
occupied, and contains sufficient primary constituent elements
(ephemeral wetland habitat, upland forested nonbreeding habitat, and
upland connectivity habitat) to support life-history functions
essential to the conservation of the species.
Glen's Pond and the habitat surrounding it, consisting of forested
uplands used as nonbreeding habitat and upland connectivity habitat
between breeding and nonbreeding habitat, support the majority of the
Mississippi gopher frogs that currently exist in the wild. Within Unit
2, Subunit A, the Mississippi gopher frog and its habitat may require
special management considerations or protection to address potential
adverse effects caused by: fire suppression and low fire frequencies;
detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could destroy
belowground soil structures such as stump removal; hydrologic changes
resulting from ditches, and/or adjacent highways and roads that could
alter the ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial
habitat; wetland degradation; random effects of drought or floods; off-
road vehicle use; gas, water, electrical power, and sewer easements;
and agricultural and urban development.
Subunit B
Unit 2, Subunit B encompasses 439 ha (1,084 ac) adjacent to Subunit
A and the area surrounding Glen's Pond. The majority of this subunit
(436 ha (1,077 ac)) is on the DeSoto National Forest, with the
remainder of the subunit (3 ha (7 ac)) in private ownership. This
subunit is not within the geographic area of the species occupied at
the time of listing and is currently unoccupied. However, we believe
this subunit is essential for the conservation of the Mississippi
gopher frog because it consists of areas, within the dispersal range of
the Mississippi gopher frog (from Subunit A), which we believe provides
potential for establishing new

[[Page 59784]]

breeding ponds and metapopulation structure that will protect the
Mississippi gopher frog from extinction. This unoccupied area consists
of three ponds and their associated uplands on the DeSoto National
Forest. These ponds have been named Reserve Pond, Pony Ranch Pond, and
New Pond during ongoing recovery initiatives. The U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) is actively managing this area to benefit the recovery of the
Mississippi gopher frog. Due to the low number of remaining populations
and severely restricted range of the Mississippi gopher frog, the
species is at high risk of extirpation from stochastic events, such as
disease or drought. Maintaining this area as suitable habitat into
which Mississippi gopher frogs could be translocated is essential to
decrease the risk of extinction of the species resulting from
stochastic events and provide for the species' eventual recovery. This
subunit is proposed as critical habitat because it is essential for the
conservation of the species.
Within Unit 2, Subunit B, threats to elements of the essential
physical and biological features of habitat for the Mississippi gopher
frog are: fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy belowground soil
structures such as stump removal; hydrologic changes resulting from
ditches, and/or adjacent highways and roads that could alter the
ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat;
wetland degradation; random effects of drought or floods; off-road
vehicle use; gas, water, electrical power, and sewer easements; and
agricultural and urban development.

Unit 3: Harrison County, Mississippi

Unit 3 encompasses 133 ha (329 ac) on Federal land in Harrison
County, Mississippi. This unit is located on the DeSoto National Forest
approximately 7.9 km (4.9 mi) east of the community of Success at Old
Hwy. 67 and 4 km (2.5 mi) south of Bethel Road.
Unit 3 is not within the geographic range of the species occupied
at the time of listing and is currently unoccupied. This area surrounds
a pond on the DeSoto National Forest given the name of Carr Bridge Road
Pond during ongoing recovery initiatives when it was selected as a
Mississippi gopher frog translocation site. The USFS is actively
managing this area to benefit the recovery of the Mississippi gopher
frog. Due to the low number of remaining populations and severely
restricted range of the Mississippi gopher frog, the species may be at
risk of extirpation from stochastic events, such as disease or drought.
Maintaining this area as suitable habitat into which Mississippi gopher
frogs could be translocated is essential to decrease the potential risk
of extinction of the species resulting from stochastic events and to
provide for the species' eventual recovery. We believe this area is
essential for the conservation of the Mississippi gopher frog because
it contains a potential breeding pond surrounded by uplands which
provide habitat for future translocation of the species in support of
Mississippi gopher frog recovery.
Within Unit 3, threats to the elements of essential physical and
biological features of habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog are:
fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy belowground soil structures such
as stump removal; hydrologic changes resulting from ditches, and/or
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas, water,
electrical power, and sewer easements; and agricultural and urban
development.

Unit 4: Jackson County, Mississippi

Unit 4 encompasses 298 ha (736 ac) on Federal and private land in
Jackson County, Mississippi. This unit borders the north side of
Interstate 10 approximately 1.1 km (0.7 mi) west of State Hwy. 57.
Within this unit, approximately 52 ha (129 ac) are in the Mississippi
Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge and 246 ha (608 ac) are in
private ownership.
Subunit A
Unit 4, Subunit A encompasses 133 ha (329 ac) on private land. It
is currently occupied as a result of translocation efforts conducted in
2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; however, it was not occupied at
the time of listing. We believe this subunit is essential for the
conservation of the Mississippi gopher frog because of the presence of
a proven breeding pond (egg masses have been deposited here in 2007 and
2010 by gopher frogs translocated to the site) and its associated
uplands (upland forested nonbreeding habitat and upland connectivity
habitat). We also believe that metapopulation structure, which will
further protect the Mississippi gopher frog from extinction, is
possible when the whole area of Unit 4 is considered. The private
owners of this property are actively managing this area to benefit the
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to the low number of
remaining populations and severely restricted range of the Mississippi
gopher frog, the species may be at high risk of extirpation from
stochastic events, such as disease or drought. Maintaining this area as
suitable habitat into which Mississippi gopher frogs can continue to be
translocated is essential to decrease the risk of extinction of the
species resulting from stochastic events and provide for the species'
eventual recovery. This subunit is proposed as critical habitat because
it is essential for the conservation of the species.
Within Unit 4, Subunit A, threats to elements of the essential
physical and biological features of habitat for the Mississippi gopher
frog are: fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy belowground soil
structures such as stump removal; hydrologic changes resulting from
ditches, and/or adjacent highways and roads that could alter the
ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat;
wetland degradation; random effects of drought or floods; off-road
vehicle use; gas, water, electrical power, and sewer easements; and
agricultural and urban development.
Subunit B
Unit 4, Subunit B encompasses 165 ha (408 ac) on Federal and
private land adjacent to Subunit A. The majority of this subunit (113
ha (279 ac)) is on private land, with the remainder of the unit (52 ha
(129 ac)) on the Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge.
This subunit is not within the geographic area of the species occupied
at the time of listing and is currently unoccupied. However, we believe
this subunit is essential for the conservation of the Mississippi
gopher frog because it consists of an area, within the dispersal range
of the Mississippi gopher frog (from Subunit A), which we believe
provides potential for establishing new breeding ponds and
metapopulation structure that will protect the Mississippi gopher frog
from extinction. This unoccupied area consists of two ponds and their
associated uplands. This area is actively managed to benefit the
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to the low number of
remaining populations and severely restricted range of the Mississippi
gopher frog, the species may be at risk of extirpation from stochastic
events, such as disease or drought. Maintaining this area as suitable
habitat is essential to decrease the potential risk of extinction of
the species and provide for

[[Page 59785]]

the species' eventual recovery. This subunit is proposed as critical
habitat because it is essential for the conservation of the species.
Within Unit 4, Subunit B, threats to elements of the essential
physical and biological features of habitat for the Mississippi gopher
frog are: fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy belowground soil
structures such as stump removal; hydrologic changes resulting from
ditches, and/or adjacent highways and roads that could alter the
ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat;
wetland degradation; random effects of drought or floods; off-road
vehicle use; gas, water, electrical power, and sewer easements; and
agricultural and urban development.

Unit 5: Jackson County, Mississippi

Unit 5 encompasses 189 ha (467ac) on private land in Jackson
County, Mississippi. This unit is located approximately 10.6 km (6.6
mi) north of Interstate 10. It is 124 m (407 ft) north of Jim Ramsey
Road and 5.7 km (3.6 mi) west of the community of Vancleave located
near State Hwy. 57.
Subunit A
Unit 5, Subunit A encompasses 133 ha (329 ac) on private land. It
is currently occupied, but was not known to be occupied at the time of
listing. This subunit contains a breeding site where Mississippi gopher
frogs were discovered in 2004, subsequent to the listing of the
Mississippi gopher frog.
We believe this subunit is essential for the conservation of the
Mississippi gopher frog because of the presence of a proven breeding
pond, designated Mike's Pond (ephemeral wetland habitat), and its
associated uplands (upland forested nonbreeding habitat and upland
connectivity habitat). We also believe that metapopulation structure,
which will further protect the Mississippi gopher frog from extinction,
is possible when the whole area of Unit 5 is considered. The private
owners of this property are actively managing this area to benefit the
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to the low number of
remaining populations and severely restricted range of the Mississippi
gopher frog, the species may be at high risk of extirpation from
stochastic events, such as disease or drought. Maintaining this area as
suitable habitat is essential to decrease the risk of extinction of the
species resulting from stochastic events and provide for the species'
eventual recovery. This subunit is proposed as critical habitat because
it is essential for the conservation of the species.
Within Unit 5, Subunit A, threats to elements of the essential
physical and biological features of habitat for the Mississippi gopher
frog are: fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy belowground soil
structures such as stump removal; hydrologic changes resulting from
ditches, and/or adjacent highways and roads that could alter the
ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat;
wetland degradation; random effects of drought or floods; off-road
vehicle use; gas, water, electrical power, and sewer easements; and
agricultural and urban development.
Subunit B
Unit 5, Subunit B encompasses 56 ha (138 ac) on private land
adjacent to Subunit A. This subunit is not within the geographic area
of the species occupied at the time of listing and is currently
unoccupied. However, we believe this subunit is essential for the
conservation of the Mississippi gopher frog because it consists of an
area, within the dispersal range of the Mississippi gopher frog (from
Subunit A), which we believe provides potential for establishing a new
breeding pond and metapopulation structure that will protect the
Mississippi gopher frog from extinction. This unoccupied area consists
of a single pond and its associated uplands. This area is actively
managed to benefit the recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to
the low number of remaining populations and severely restricted range
of the Mississippi gopher frog, the species may be at risk of
extirpation from stochastic events, such as disease or drought.
Maintaining this area as suitable habitat is essential to decrease the
potential risk of extinction of the species and provide for the
species' eventual recovery. This subunit is proposed as critical
habitat because it is essential for the conservation of the species.
Within Unit 5, Subunit B, threats to elements of the essential
physical and biological features of habitat for the Mississippi gopher
frog are: fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that could destroy belowground soil
structures such as stump removal; hydrologic changes resulting from
ditches, and/or adjacent highways and roads that could alter the
ecology of the breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat;
wetland degradation; random effects of drought or floods; off-road
vehicle use; gas, water, electrical power, and sewer easements; and
agricultural and urban development.

Unit 6: Jackson County, Mississippi

Unit 6 encompasses 133 ha (329 ac) on Federal land in Jackson
County, Mississippi. This unit is located on the Ward Bayou Wildlife
Management Area (WMA) approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) northeast of State
Hwy. 57 and the community of Vancleave. This land is owned by the Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps) and managed by the Mississippi Department of
Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP).
Unit 6 is not within the geographic range of the species occupied
at the time of listing and is currently unoccupied. This area consists
of a pond and its associated uplands on the WMA and has been given the
name of Mayhaw Pond during ongoing recovery initiatives. We believe
this area is essential for the conservation of the Mississippi gopher
frog because it contains elements of features essential to the
conservation of the species, a potential breeding pond and the
surrounding uplands, that provide habitat for future translocation of
the species in support of Mississippi gopher frog recovery.
Unit 6 is being actively managed by the Corps and MDWFP to benefit
the recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to the low number of
remaining populations and severely restricted range of the Mississippi
gopher frog, the species may be at risk of extirpation from stochastic
events, such as disease or drought. Maintaining this area of suitable
habitat, into which Mississippi gopher frogs could be translocated, is
essential to decrease the potential risk of extinction of the species
and provide for the species' eventual recovery. This unit is proposed
as critical habitat because it is essential for the conservation of the
species.
Within Unit 6, threats to elements of the essential physical and
biological features of habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog are:
fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy belowground soil structures such
as stump removal; hydrologic changes resulting from ditches, and/or
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas, water,
electrical power, and sewer easements; and agricultural and urban
development.

[[Page 59786]]

Unit 7: Jackson County, Mississippi

Unit 7 encompasses 133 ha (329 ac) on State and private land in
Jackson County, Mississippi. This unit is located approximately 4.2 km
(2.6 mi) east of the intersection of State Hwy. 63 and State Hwy. 613;
it is 3.8 km (2.4 mi) west of the Escatawpa River, and 3.2 km (2 mi)
northeast of Helena, Mississippi. The portion of this unit in State
ownership (116 ha (287 ac)) is 16th section land held in trust by the
State of Mississippi as a local funding source for education in Jackson
County. The local Jackson County School board has jurisdiction and
control of the land. The balance of this unit is on private land (17 ha
(42 ac)).
Unit 7 is currently occupied, but was not known to be occupied at
the time of listing. The area, discovered in 2004 subsequent to the
listing of the Mississippi gopher frog, contains a breeding pond
designated McCoy's Pond and associated uplands. We believe this area is
essential for the conservation of the species because it represents
habitat naturally occupied by the Mississippi gopher frog and will
support recovery of the species. Currently, the State-owned portion of
the area is managed by the Mississippi Forestry Commission for timber
production for the Jackson County School Board. Due to the low number
of remaining populations and severely restricted range of the
Mississippi gopher frog, it may be at high risk of extirpation from
stochastic events, such as disease or drought. Maintaining this area of
currently occupied habitat for Mississippi gopher frogs is essential to
decrease the risk of extinction of the species and provide for the
species' eventual recovery. This unit is proposed as critical habitat
because it is essential for the conservation of the species.
Within Unit 7, threats to elements of the essential physical and
biological features of habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog are:
fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy belowground soil structures such
as stump removal; hydrologic changes resulting from ditches, and/or
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas, water,
electrical power, and sewer easements; and agricultural and urban
development.

Unit 8: Forrest County, Mississippi

Unit 8 encompasses 133 ha (329 ac) on Federal land in Forrest
County, Mississippi. This unit is located on the DeSoto National Forest
approximately 1.9 km (1.2 mi) east of U.S. Hwy. 49, approximately 1.7
km (1.1 mi) south of Black Creek, and approximately 3.1 km (1.9 mi)
southeast of the community of Brooklyn, Mississippi.
Unit 8 is not within the geographic range of the species occupied
at the time of listing and is currently unoccupied. This area consists
of a pond and associated uplands that have been selected as a future
Mississippi gopher frog translocation site during ongoing recovery
initiatives. We believe this area is essential for the conservation of
the Mississippi gopher frog because it contains elements of features
essential to the conservation of the species, a potential breeding pond
and surrounding uplands, that provide habitat for future translocation
of the species in support of Mississippi gopher frog recovery.
Unit 8 is being actively managed by the USFS to benefit the
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to the low number of
remaining populations and severely restricted range of the Mississippi
gopher frog, the species may be at risk of extirpation from stochastic
events, such as disease or drought. Maintaining this area as suitable
habitat, into which Mississippi gopher frogs could be translocated, is
essential to decrease the potential risk of extinction of the species
and provide for the species' eventual recovery. This unit is proposed
as critical habitat because it is essential for the conservation of the
species.
Within Unit 8, threats to the elements of essential physical and
biological features of habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog are:
fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy belowground soil structures such
as stump removal; hydrologic changes resulting from ditches, and/or
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas, water,
electrical power, and sewer easements; and agricultural and urban
development.

Unit 9: Forrest County, Mississippi

Unit 9 encompasses 133 ha (329 ac) on Federal land and private land
in Forrest County, Mississippi. The majority of this unit (131 ha
(324)) is located on the DeSoto National Forest and the balance (2 ha
(5 ac)) is located on private land. This unit is located approximately
3.9 km (2.4 mi) east of U.S. Hwy. 49, approximately 4.3 km (2.7 mi)
south of Black Creek, and approximately 6.1 km (3.8 mi) southeast of
the community of Brooklyn, Mississippi, at the Perry County line.
Unit 9 is not within the geographic range of the species occupied
at the time of listing and is currently unoccupied. This area consists
of a pond and associated uplands that have been selected as a future
Mississippi gopher frog translocation site during ongoing recovery
initiatives. We believe this area is essential for the conservation of
the Mississippi gopher frog because it contains elements of features
essential to the conservation of the species, a potential breeding pond
and the surrounding uplands, that provide habitat for future
translocation of the species in support of Mississippi gopher frog
recovery.
Most of Unit 9 is being actively managed by the USFS to benefit the
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to the low number of
remaining populations and severely restricted range of the Mississippi
gopher frog, the species may be at risk of extirpation from stochastic
events, such as disease or drought. Maintaining this area as suitable
habitat, into which Mississippi gopher frogs could be translocated, is
essential to decrease the potential risk of extinction of the species
and provide for the species' eventual recovery. This unit is proposed
as critical habitat because it is essential for the conservation of the
species.
Within Unit 9, threats to elements of the essential physical and
biological features of habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog are:
fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy belowground soil structures such
as stump removal; hydrologic changes resulting from ditches, and/or
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas, water,
electrical power, and sewer easements; and agricultural and urban
development.

Unit 10: Perry County, Mississippi

Unit 10 encompasses 182 ha (450 ac) on Federal land and private
land in Perry County, Mississippi. The majority of this unit (135 ha
(334 ac) is located on the DeSoto National Forest and the remaining
balance (47 ha (116 ac)) is located on private land. This unit is
located at the intersection of Benndale Road and Mars Hill Road,
approximately 2.6 km (1.6 mi) northwest of the intersection of the
Perry County, Stone County, and George

[[Page 59787]]

County lines and approximately 7.2 km (4.5 mi) north of State Hwy. 26.
Unit 10 is not within the geographic range of the species occupied
at the time of listing and is currently unoccupied. This area consists
of two ponds and their associated uplands that have been selected as
future Mississippi gopher frog translocation sites during ongoing
recovery initiatives. It provides the potential for establishing new
breeding ponds and metapopulation structure that will protect the
Mississippi gopher frog from extinction. We believe this area is
essential for the conservation of the Mississippi gopher frog because
it contains elements of features essential to the conservation of the
species, two potential breeding ponds and their surrounding uplands,
that provide habitat for future translocation of the species in support
of Mississippi gopher frog recovery.
Most of Unit 10 is being actively managed by the USFS to benefit
the recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to the low number of
remaining populations and severely restricted range of the Mississippi
gopher frog, the species may be at high risk of extirpation from
stochastic events, such as disease or drought. Maintaining this area as
suitable habitat, into which Mississippi gopher frogs could be
translocated, is essential to decrease the risk of extinction of the
species and provide for the species' eventual recovery. This unit is
proposed as critical habitat because it is essential for the
conservation of the species.
Within Unit 10, threats to elements of the essential physical and
biological features of habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog are:
fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy belowground soil structures such
as stump removal; hydrologic changes resulting from ditches, and/or
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas, water,
electrical power, and sewer easements; and agricultural and urban
development.

Unit 11: Perry County, Mississippi

Unit 11 encompasses 133 ha (329 ac) on Federal land and private
land in Perry County, Mississippi. The majority of this unit (129 ha
(319 ac)) is located on the DeSoto National Forest and the remaining
balance (4 ha (10 ac)) is located on private land. This unit borders
the north side of Benndale Road northeast of the intersection of the
Perry County, Stone County, and George County lines, approximately 6.4
km (4 mi) north of State Hwy. 26.
Unit 11 is not within the geographic range of the species occupied
at the time of listing and is currently unoccupied. This area consists
of a pond and associated uplands that have been selected as a future
Mississippi gopher frog translocation site during ongoing recovery
initiatives. We believe this area is essential for the conservation of
the Mississippi gopher frog because it contains features essential to
the conservation of the species, a potential breeding pond and the
surrounding uplands, that provide habitat for future translocation of
the species in support of Mississippi gopher frog recovery.
Most of Unit 11 is being actively managed by the USFS to benefit
the recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to the low number of
remaining populations and severely restricted range of the Mississippi
gopher frog, the species may be at risk of extirpation from stochastic
events, such as disease or drought. Maintaining this area as suitable
habitat, into which Mississippi gopher frogs could be translocated, is
essential to decrease the potential risk of extinction of the species
and provide for the species' eventual recovery. This unit is proposed
as critical habitat because it is essential for the conservation of the
species.
Within Unit 11, threats to elements of the essential physical and
biological features of habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog are:
fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy belowground soil structures such
as stump removal; hydrologic changes resulting from ditches, and/or
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas, water,
electrical power, and sewer easements; and agricultural and urban
development.

Unit 12: Perry County, Mississippi

Unit 12 encompasses 133 ha (329 ac) on Federal land and private
land in Perry County, Mississippi. The majority of this unit (125 ha
(309 ac)) is located on the DeSoto National Forest and the remaining
balance (8 ha (20 ac)) is located on private land. This unit is located
approximately 1.2 km (0.75 mi) east of Mars Hill Road, approximately
3.9 km (2.4 mi) north of the intersection of the Perry County, Stone
County, and George County lines, and approximately 10.2 km (6.4 mi)
north of State Hwy. 26.
Unit 12 is not within the geographic range of the species occupied
at the time of listing and is currently unoccupied. This area consists
of a pond and its associated uplands that have been selected as a
future Mississippi gopher frog translocation site during ongoing
recovery initiatives. We believe this area is essential for the
conservation of the Mississippi gopher frog because it contains
elements of features essential to the conservation of the species, a
potential breeding pond and the surrounding uplands, that provide
habitat for future translocation of the species in support of
Mississippi gopher frog recovery.
Most of Unit 12 is being actively managed by the USFS to benefit
the recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to the low number of
remaining populations and severely restricted range of the Mississippi
gopher frog, the species may be at risk of extirpation from stochastic
events such as disease or drought. Maintaining this area as suitable
habitat into which Mississippi gopher frogs could be translocated is
essential to decrease the potential risk of extinction of the species
and provide for the species' eventual recovery. This unit is proposed
as critical habitat because it is essential for the conservation of the
species.
Within Unit 12, threats to elements of the essential physical and
biological features of habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog are:
fire suppression and low fire frequencies; detrimental alterations in
forestry practices that could destroy belowground soil structures such
as stump removal; hydrologic changes resulting from ditches, and/or
adjacent highways and roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas, water,
electrical power, and sewer easements; and agricultural and urban
development.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they fund, authorize, or carry out
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered
species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to
confer with the Service on any agency action which is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed
under the Act or result in the

[[Page 59788]]

destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals have
invalidated our definition of ``destruction or adverse modification''
(50 CFR 402.02) (see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we
do not rely on this regulatory definition when analyzing whether an
action is likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under
the statutory provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or
adverse modification on the basis of whether, with implementation of
the proposed Federal action, the affected critical habitat would
continue to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed species or its critical
habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) must enter into
consultation with us. Examples of actions that are subject to the
section 7 consultation process are actions on State, tribal, local, or
private lands that require a Federal permit (such as a permit from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the Service under section 10
of the Act) or that involve some other Federal action (such as funding
from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency). Federal
actions not affecting listed species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local or private lands that are not federally funded
or authorized, do not require section 7 consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation, we document compliance with
the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat;
or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, or
are likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion concluding that a project is
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species and/or
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we provide reasonable and
prudent alternatives to the project, if any are identifiable, that
would avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat. We define ``reasonable and prudent
alternatives'' (at 50 CFR 402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended
purpose of the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid the likelihood of
jeopardizing the continued existence of the listed species and/or avoid
the likelihood of destroying or adversely modifying critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal
agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.

Application of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard

The key factor related to the adverse modification determination is
whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal action, the
affected critical habitat would continue to serve its intended
conservation role for the species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the physical and
biological features to an extent that appreciably reduces the
conservation value of critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog.
As discussed above, the role of critical habitat is to support life-
history needs of the species and provide for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us to briefly evaluate and
describe, in any proposed or final regulation that designates critical
habitat, activities involving a Federal action that may destroy or
adversely modify such habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical habitat, when carried out,
funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, should result in
consultation for the Mississippi gopher frog. These activities include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would alter the hydrology or water quality of
Mississippi gopher frog wetland habitats. Such activities could
include, but are not limited to, discharge of fill material; release of
chemicals and/or biological pollutants; clearcutting, draining,
ditching, grading, or bedding; diversion or alteration of surface or
ground water flow into or out of a wetland (i.e., due to roads, fire
breaks, impoundments, discharge pipes, etc.); discharge or dumping of
toxic chemicals, silt, or other pollutants (i.e., sewage, oil,
pesticides, and gasoline); and use of vehicles within wetlands. These
activities could destroy Mississippi gopher frog breeding sites, reduce
the hydrological regime necessary for successful larval metamorphosis,
and/or eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for the growth and
reproduction, and affect the prey base, of the Mississippi gopher frog.
(2) Forestry management actions in pine habitat that would
significantly alter the suitability of Mississippi gopher frog
terrestrial habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited
to, conversion of timber land to another use; timber management
including clearcutting, site preparation involving ground disturbance,
prescribed burning, and unlawful pesticide application. These
activities could destroy or alter the uplands necessary for the growth
and development of juvenile and adult Mississippi gopher frogs.
(3) Actions that would significantly fragment and isolate
Mississippi gopher frog wetland and upland habitats from each other.
Such activities could include, but are not limited to, constructing new
structures or new roads and converting forested habitat to other uses.
These activities could limit or prevent the dispersal of Mississippi
gopher frogs from breeding sites to upland habitat or vice versa due to
obstructions to movement caused by structures, certain types of curbs,
increased traffic density, or inhospitable habitat.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act

The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)

[[Page 59789]]

required each military installation that includes land and water
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation,
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs; and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement,
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographic areas owned
or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its use,
that are subject to an integrated natural resources management plan
prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if the
Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit to
the species for which critical habitat is proposed for designation.''
There are no Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP
within the proposed critical habitat designation. Therefore, we are not
proposing exemption of any lands owned or managed by the Department of
Defense from this designation of critical habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog.

Exclusions

Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act

Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary shall
designate and make revisions to critical habitat on the basis of the
best available scientific data after taking into consideration the
economic impact, national security impact, and any other relevant
impact of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. The
Secretary may exclude an area from critical habitat if he determines
that the benefits of such exclusion outweigh the benefits of specifying
such area as part of the critical habitat, unless he determines, based
on the best scientific data available, that the failure to designate
such area as critical habitat will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination, the statute on its face, as well
as the legislative history, are clear that the Secretary has broad
discretion regarding which factor(s) to use and how much weight to give
to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we identify
the benefits of including the area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and evaluate
whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion.
If the analysis indicates that the benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion, the Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion would not result in the
extinction of the species.
We have not proposed to exclude any areas from critical habitat.
However, the final decision on whether to exclude any areas will be
based on the best scientific data available at the time of the final
designation, including information obtained during the comment period
and information about the impacts of designation.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider the economic impacts
of specifying any particular area as critical habitat. In order to
consider economic impacts, we have prepared a draft economic analysis
(DEA) concerning this proposed critical habitat designation, which is
available for review and comment (see ADDRESSES). This DEA was
specifically drafted for this revised proposed designation of critical
habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog. It represents a revision of
the previous DEA announced in the Federal Register on June 1, 2010 (75
FR 77817).
Draft Economic Analysis
The purpose of the DEA is to identify and analyze the potential
economic impacts associated with this proposed critical habitat
designation for the Mississippi gopher frog. The DEA separates
conservation measures into two distinct categories according to
``without critical habitat'' and ``with critical habitat'' scenarios.
The ``without critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for
the analysis, considering protections otherwise afforded to the
Mississippi gopher frog (e.g., under the Federal listing and other
Federal, State, and local regulations). The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the incremental impacts specifically due to
designation of critical habitat for the species. In other words, these
incremental conservation measures and associated economic impacts would
not occur but for the designation. Conservation measures implemented
under the baseline (without critical habitat) scenario are described
qualitatively within the DEA, but economic impacts associated with
these measures are not quantified. Economic impacts are only quantified
for conservation measures implemented specifically due to the
designation of critical habitat (i.e., incremental impacts). For a
further description of the methodology of the analysis, see Chapter 2,
``Framework for the Analysis,'' of the DEA.
The DEA describes incremental economic impacts associated with Unit
1 in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, using three different scenarios.
This approach was taken because most of the estimated incremental
impacts are related to the lost development value in Unit 1,
considerable uncertainty existed regarding the likelihood of a Federal
nexus for development activities there, and potential existed for the
Service to recommend conservation measures if consultation were to
occur. Scenario 1 assumes the proposed development within Unit 1 would
avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and, as a result, there would
be no Federal nexus (no Federal permit required) triggering section 7
consultation regarding gopher frog critical habitat. Scenario 2 assumes
the proposed development within Unit 1 would impact jurisdictional
wetlands and a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Clean Water Act
Section 404 permit (permit) would be required, thus triggering section
7 consultation regarding gopher frog critical habitat. This scenario
assumed that the Service would work with the landowner to establish
conservation areas for the gopher frog that would result in management
of 60 percent of the area for gopher frog conservation and recovery.
Scenario 3 is similar to Scenario 2 in that it assumes the proposed
development within Unit 1 would impact jurisdictional wetlands

[[Page 59790]]

and a Corps permit would be required, thus triggering section 7
consultation regarding gopher frog critical habitat. However, in this
scenario, the assumption was made that due to the importance of Unit 1
to the conservation and recovery of the species, the Service would
recommend no development within the unit during consultation. The DEA
cost estimates for each scenario were broken down into the following
categories: (1) Costs associated with economic activities, including
development and forestry; (2) costs associated with military
activities; and (3) costs associated with active species management.
Applying a seven percent discount rate, the DEA estimates that over
the next 20 years the total incremental impacts of conservation
activities for the Mississippi gopher frog using Scenario 1 would be
$102,000 ($9,610 in annualized impacts); using Scenario 2, it would be
$21.8 million ($2.06 million in annualized impacts); and using Scenario
3, it would be $36.3 million ($3.43 million in annualized impacts). The
broad range in cost estimates stems primarily from uncertainty
regarding the likelihood of a Federal nexus for development activities
in Unit 1, and the conservation measures that the Service may recommend
if consultation does occur. All economic impacts stem from the
administrative cost of addressing adverse modification of critical
habitat during section 7 consultations. Incremental impacts stemming
from additional gopher frog conservation measures requested by the
Service during section 7 consultation are not expected in occupied
areas because project modifications that may be needed to minimize
impacts to the species would coincidentally minimize impacts to
critical habitat. In unoccupied areas, project modifications resulting
from consultation would be considered incremental impacts of the
critical habitat designation.
The DEA also discusses the potential economic benefits associated
with the designation of critical habitat. However, because the Service
believes that the direct benefits of the designation are best expressed
in biological terms, this analysis does not quantify or monetize
benefits; only a qualitative discussion of economic benefits is
provided.
As stated earlier, we are soliciting data and comments from the
public on the DEA, as well as all aspects of the proposed rule and our
amended required determinations. We may revise the rule or supporting
documents to incorporate or address information we receive during the
public comment period. In particular, we may exclude an area from
critical habitat if we determine that the benefits of excluding the
area outweigh the benefits of including the area, provided the
exclusion will not result in the extinction of this species.
Exclusions Based on National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national
security impact might exist. The Mississippi Army National Guard
conducts training in an area of the DeSoto National Forest where Units
10, 11, and 12 are located. This training is authorized by a Special
Use Permit with the USFS and the lands covered by the permit are open
to the public for all lawful purposes. The USFS manages this property
as part of a Habitat Management Area for red-cockaded woodpeckers and,
as a result, there are certain limitations to training activities in
this area. In preparing this proposal, we have determined that lands
within the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog are not owned or managed by the Department of Defense.
Additionally, we anticipate no impact to national security because
training limitations are already in place for the endangered red-
cockaded woodpecker. Consequently, the Secretary does not propose to
exert his discretion to exclude any areas from the final designation
based on impacts to national security. However, we did receive a
request to exclude this area during the comment period for the
previously published proposed rule. Therefore, if anyone has
information on why this property, or any property owned or managed by
Department of Defense, should be excluded under Section 4(b)(2) of the
Act we encourage the submission of comments as described above under
the Public Comments section of this proposed rule.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant
impacts, in addition to economic impacts and impacts on national
security. We consider a number of factors, including whether the
landowners have developed any HCPs or other management plans for the
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues, and consider the government-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the
designation.
In preparing this proposed rule, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans for the Mississippi gopher
frog, and the proposed designation does not include any tribal lands or
trust resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships,
or HCPs from this proposed critical habitat designation. Accordingly,
the Secretary does not propose to exert his discretion to exclude any
areas from the final designation based on other relevant impacts.

Peer Review

In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of peer review is to ensure
that our critical habitat designation is based on scientifically sound
data, assumptions, and analyses. We have invited these peer reviewers
to comment during this public comment period on our specific
assumptions and conclusions in this proposed designation of critical
habitat.
We will consider all comments and information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule, as well as those comments
received during the comment period for the previous proposed rule,
during preparation of a final determination. Accordingly, the final
decision may differ from this proposal.

Public Hearings

Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for one or more public hearings
on this proposal, if requested. Requests must be received within 45
days of the publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register.
Such requests must be sent to the address shown in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule public hearings on this proposal,
if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings, as well as how to obtain reasonable accommodations, in
the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 days before the
hearing.

Required Determinations--Amended

In our June 3, 2010, proposed rule (75 FR 31387), we indicated that
we would defer our determination of compliance with several statutes
until our draft economic analysis was available. In this revision of
the proposed designation of critical habitat for Mississippi gopher
frog, we have made use of the

[[Page 59791]]

information in our draft economic analysis in making our determination
that this proposed rule is in compliance with the statutes and
Executive Orders detailed below.

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this
rule is not significant and has not reviewed this proposed rule under
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review). OMB bases its
determination upon the following four criteria:
(1) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or
more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector,
productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government.
(2) Whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies' actions.
(3) Whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants,
user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their
recipients.
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.),
as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996 (SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any proposed or final rule, it must
prepare and make available for public comment a regulatory flexibility
analysis that describes the effects of the rule on small entities
(i.e., small businesses, small organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required
if the head of an agency certifies the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA
amended the RFA to require Federal agencies to provide a certification
statement of the factual basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Based on our DEA of the proposed designation, we provide our
analysis for determining whether the proposed rule would result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on comments we receive during the open comment period, we may
revise this determination as part of a final rulemaking.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 employees,
retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in annual
sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than $27.5
million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and agricultural businesses with
annual sales less than $750,000. To determine if potential economic
impacts to these small entities are significant, we considered the
types of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this
designation as well as types of project modifications that may result.
In general, the term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply
to a typical small business firm's business operations.
To determine if this proposed designation of critical habitat for
the Mississippi gopher frog would affect a substantial number of small
entities, we considered the number of small entities affected within
particular types of economic activities, such as timber operations, and
residential and commercial development, along with the accompanying
infrastructure associated with such projects, including road, storm
water drainage, and bridge and culvert construction and maintenance. In
order to determine whether it is appropriate for our agency to certify
that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, we considered each industry or
category individually. In estimating the numbers of small entities
potentially affected, we also considered whether their activities have
any Federal involvement. Critical habitat designation will not affect
activities that do not have any Federal involvement; designation of
critical habitat only affects activities conducted, funded, permitted,
or authorized by Federal agencies.
If we finalize this proposed critical habitat designation, Federal
agencies must consult with us under section 7 of the Act if their
activities may affect designated critical habitat. In areas where the
Mississippi gopher frog is present, Federal agencies are already
required to consult with us under section 7 of the Act, due to the
endangered status of the species. Consultations to avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat would be
incorporated into the same consultation process.
In the DEA, we evaluated the potential economic effects on small
entities resulting from implementation of conservation actions related
to the proposed designation of critical habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog. The Service and the action agency are the only entities
with direct compliance costs associated with this proposed critical
habitat designation, although small entities may participate in section
7 consultation as a third party. It is, therefore, possible that the
small entities may spend additional time considering critical habitat
during section 7 consultation for the gopher frog. The DEA indicates
that the incremental impacts potentially incurred by small entities are
limited to development activities on Tradition Properties in Subunits
2a and 2b (where 10 acres of proposed critical habitat overlap a
planning area for a large-scale development), and potential future
development within 1,649-acre Unit 1 owned by four small businesses and
an individual. The five small businesses, considered small Land
Subdividers, represent approximately 3.9 percent of the total (129
small businesses in this sector) small Land Subdividers within the
counties containing proposed critical habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog. Incremental costs of gopher frog critical habitat to
Tradition Properties are anticipated to result in an annualized impact
of $127 (which would represent less than 0.01 percent of Tradition
Properties' average annual revenues). Annualized impacts to the four
small businesses in Unit 1were evaluated according to the three
Scenarios described above in the Draft Economic Analysis section. Under
Scenario 1, there would be no impact to small businesses. Under
Scenario 2, an impact of $2.05 million was calculated, approximately
28.6 percent of annual revenues; under Scenario 3, an impact of $3.43
million was calculated, approximately 47.8 percent of annual revenues.
Our analysis constitutes an evaluation of not only potentially
directly affected parties, but those also potentially indirectly
affected. Under the RFA and following recent case law, we are only
required to evaluate the direct effects of a regulation to determine
compliance. Since the regulatory effect of critical habitat is through
section 7 of the Act which applies only to Federal agencies, we have
determined that only Federal agencies are directly affected by this
rulemaking. Other entities, such as small businesses, are only
indirectly affected. However, to better understand

[[Page 59792]]

the potential effects of a designation of critical habitat, we
frequently evaluate the potential impact to those entities that may be
indirectly affected, as was the case for this rulemaking. In doing so,
we focus on the specific areas being designated as critical habitat and
compare the number of small business entities potentially affected in
that area with other small business entities in the regional area,
versus comparing the entities in the area of designation with entities
nationally--which is more commonly done. This results in an estimation
of a higher proportion of small businesses potentially affected. In
this rulemaking, we calculate that the proportion of small businesses
potentially affected is 3.9 percent of those regionally. If we were to
calculate that value based on the proportion nationally, then our
estimate would be significantly lower than 1 percent.
Following our evaluation of potential effects to small business
entities from this rulemaking, we do not believe that the 5 small
businesses or 3.9 percent of the small businesses in the affected
sector represents a substantial number. However, we recognize that the
potential effects to these small businesses under Scenarios 2 and 3 may
be significant. We will further evaluate the potential effects to these
small businesses as we develop our final rulemaking.
In summary, we have considered whether this proposed designation
would result in a significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities. Information for this analysis was gathered from the
Small Business Administration, stakeholders, and the Service. For the
reasons discussed above, and based on currently available information,
we certify that if promulgated, the proposed designation would not
directly have a significant effect on a substantial number of small
business entities. Therefore, an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required. However, as we develop the final rule we will
further evaluate the potential indirect effects on this designation on
small business entities.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use) requires
agencies to prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking
certain actions. Based on an analysis of areas included in this
proposal, we do not expect the designation of this proposed critical
habitat to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use.
Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no
Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
et seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a Federal mandate. In general, a
Federal mandate is a provision in legislation, statute, or regulation
that would impose an enforceable duty upon State, local, or Tribal
governments, or the private sector, and includes both ``Federal
intergovernmental mandates'' and ``Federal private sector mandates.''
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C. 658(5)-(7). ``Federal
intergovernmental mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments,'' with
two exceptions. It excludes ``a condition of Federal assistance.'' It
also excludes ``a duty arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,'' unless the regulation ``relates to a then-existing
Federal program under which $500,000,000 or more is provided annually
to State, local, and tribal governments under entitlement authority,''
if the provision would ``increase the stringency of conditions of
assistance'' or ``place caps upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government's responsibility to provide funding,'' and the State, local,
or tribal governments ``lack authority'' to adjust accordingly. At the
time of enactment, these entitlement programs were: Medicaid; Aid for
Families with Dependent Children work programs; Child Nutrition; Food
Stamps; Social Services Block Grants; Vocational Rehabilitation State
Grants; Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, and Independent Living;
Family Support Welfare Services; and Child Support Enforcement.
``Federal private sector mandate'' includes a regulation that ``would
impose an enforceable duty upon the private sector, except (i) a
condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a duty arising from
participation in a voluntary Federal program.''
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on non-Federal government entities or private parties.
Under the Act, the only regulatory effect is that Federal agencies must
ensure that their actions do not destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs
listed above onto State governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule will significantly or uniquely
affect small governments because the Mississippi gopher frog occurs
primarily on Federal and privately owned lands. None of these
government entities fit the definition of ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not
required.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical
habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog in a takings implications
assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this
designation of critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog does
not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected
by the designation. Critical habitat designation does not affect
landowner actions that do not require Federal funding or permits, nor
does it preclude development of habitat conservation programs or
issuance of incidental take permits to permit actions that do require
Federal funding or permits to go forward.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

In accordance with E. O. 13132 (Federalism), this proposed rule
does not have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment
is not required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and
Department of Commerce policy, we requested information from, and
coordinated development of, this proposed critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies in Louisiana and Mississippi.
The designation of critical habitat in areas currently occupied by the
Mississippi gopher frog imposes no additional restriction to those
currently in place and, therefore, has little incremental impact on
State and local governments and their activities. The designation may
have some benefit to

[[Page 59793]]

these governments because the areas that contain the physical and
biological features essential to the conservation of the species are
more clearly defined, and the elements of the features necessary to the
conservation of the species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and what federally sponsored
activities may occur. However, it may assist local governments in long-
range planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7
consultations to occur).
Where State and local governments require approval or authorization
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat,
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed rule uses
standard property descriptions and identifies the elements of physical
and biological features essential to the conservation of the
Mississippi gopher frog within the designated areas to assist the
public in understanding the habitat needs of the species.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

This rule does not contain any new collections of information that
require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). This rule will not impose recordkeeping or
reporting requirements on State or local governments, individuals,
businesses, or organizations. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and
a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.C.C. 4321 et seq.)

It is our position that, outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to prepare
environmental analyses pursuant to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We published a notice outlining our
reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on October 25,
1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was upheld by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495
(9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).

Clarity of the Rule

We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; (59 FR 22951)), Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge
that tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make
information available to tribes. We have determined that there are no
tribal lands that were occupied by the Mississippi gopher frog at the
time of listing that contain the features essential for the
conservation of the species, and no tribal lands unoccupied by the
Mississippi gopher frog that are essential for the conservation of the
species. Therefore, we are not proposing to designate critical habitat
for the Mississippi gopher frog on tribal lands.

References Cited

A complete list of all references cited in this rulemaking is
available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov and upon
request from the Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Author

The primary author of this package is Linda LaClaire of the
Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to further amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as proposed to
be amended at 75 FR 31387, June 3, 2010, as follows:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

2. In Sec. 17.95(d), revise the entry for ``Mississippi gopher
frog'' (Rana sevosa) in the same alphabetical order as the species
appears in Sec. 17.11(h), to read as follows:

Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
(d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
Mississippi gopher frog (Rana sevosa)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted for St. Tammany Parish,
Louisiana, and Forrest, Harrison, Jackson, and Perry Counties in
Mississippi, on the maps below.

[[Page 59794]]

(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the
Mississippi gopher frog consist of three components:
(i) Primary Constituent Element 1--Ephemeral wetland habitat.
Breeding ponds, geographically isolated from other waterbodies and
embedded in forests historically dominated by longleaf pine
communities, that are small (generally <0.4 to 4.0 hectares (<1 to 10
acres), ephemeral, and acidic. Specific conditions necessary in
breeding ponds to allow for successful reproduction of Mississippi
gopher frogs are:
(A) An open canopy with emergent herbaceous vegetation for egg
attachment;
(B) An absence of large, predatory fish that prey on frog larvae;
(C) Water quality such that frogs, their eggs, or larvae are not
exposed to pesticides or chemicals and sediment associated with road
runoff; and
(D) Surface water that lasts for a minimum of 195 days during the
breeding season to allow a sufficient period for larvae to hatch,
mature, and metamorphose.
(ii) Primary Constituent Element 2--Upland forested nonbreeding
habitat. Forests historically dominated by longleaf pine, adjacent and
accessible to and from breeding ponds, that is maintained by fires
frequent enough to support an open canopy and abundant herbaceous
ground cover and gopher tortoise burrows, small mammal burrows, stump
holes, or other underground habitat that the Mississippi gopher frog
depends upon for food, shelter, and protection from the elements and
predation; and
(iii) Primary Constituent Element 3--Upland connectivity habitat.
Accessible upland habitat between breeding and nonbreeding habitats to
allow for Mississippi gopher frog movements between and among such
sites. It is characterized by an open canopy and abundant native
herbaceous species and subsurface structure which provides shelter for
Mississippi gopher frogs during seasonal movements, such as that
created by deep litter cover, clumps of grass, or burrows.
(3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as
buildings, aqueducts, runways, roads, and other paved areas) and the
land on which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on
the effective date of this rule.
(4) Critical habitat unit maps. Maps were developed from USGS 7.5'
quadrangles, and critical habitat units were then mapped using
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
(5) Note: Index Map (Map 1) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 59795]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE11.000

[[Page 59796]]

(6) Unit 1: St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 1: St. Tammany
Parish, Louisiana]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 1: St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE11.001

[[Page 59797]]

(7) Unit 2: Harrison County, Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 2, Subunit A:
Harrison County, Mississippi]
(ii) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 2, Subunit B:
Harrison County, Mississippi]
(iii) Note: Map depicting Unit 2 is provided at paragraph (8)(ii)
of this entry.
(8) Unit 3: Harrison County, Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 3: Harrison County,
Mississippi]
(ii) Note: Map of Units 2 and 3 follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE11.002

(9) Unit 4: Jackson County, Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 4, Subunit A: Jackson
County, Mississippi]
(ii) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 4, Subunit B:
Jackson County, Mississippi]

[[Page 59798]]

(iii) Note: Map depicting Unit 4 is provided at paragraph (11)(ii)
of this entry.
(10) Unit 5: Jackson County, Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit5, Subunit A: Jackson
County, Mississippi]
(ii) [Reserved for textual description of Unit5, Subunit B: Jackson
County, Mississippi]
(iii) Note: Map depicting Unit 5 is provided at paragraph (11)(ii)
of this entry.
(11) Unit 6: Jackson County, Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 6: Jackson County,
Mississippi]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 4: Jackson County, Mississippi; Unit 5:
Jackson County, Mississippi; and Unit 6: Jackson County, Mississippi
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE11.003

[[Page 59799]]

(12) Unit 7: Jackson County, Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 7: Jackson County,
Mississippi]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 7: Jackson County, Mississippi follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE11.004

[[Page 59800]]

(13) Unit 8: Forrest County, Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 8: Forrest County,
Mississippi]
(ii) Note: Map depicting Unit 8 is provided at paragraph (14)(ii)
of this entry.
(14) Unit 9: Forrest County, Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 9: Forrest County,
Mississippi]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 8: Forrest County, Mississippi and Unit 9:
Forrest County, Mississippi follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE11.005

[[Page 59801]]

(15) Unit 10: Perry County, Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 10: Perry County,
Mississippi]
(ii) Note: Map depicting Unit 10 is provided at paragraph (17)(ii)
of this entry.
(16) Unit 11: Perry County, Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 11: Perry County,
Mississippi]
(ii) Note: Map depicting Unit 11 is provided at paragraph (17)(ii)
of this entry.
(17) Unit 12: Perry County, Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 12: Perry County,
Mississippi]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 10, Perry County, Mississippi; Unit 11,
Perry County, Mississippi; and Unit 12, Perry County, Mississippi
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE11.006

[[Page 59802]]

* * * * *

Dated: September 12, 2011.
Rachel Jacobson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2011-24046 Filed 9-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C