[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 12, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35118-35161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13488]
[[Page 35117]]
Vol. 77
Tuesday,
No. 113
June 12, 2012
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 Dusky Gopher Frog (Previously Mississippi Gopher Frog);
Final Rule and Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2012 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 35118]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2010-0024; 4500030114]
RIN 1018-AW89
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of
Critical Habitat for Dusky Gopher Frog (Previously Mississippi Gopher
Frog)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, designate critical
habitat for the dusky gopher frog under the Endangered Species Act. In
previous publications, we used the common name ``Mississippi gopher
frog'' for this species. We are taking this action to fulfill our
obligations under the Act. Land in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, and
Forrest, Harrison, Jackson, and Perry Counties, Mississippi, is being
designated under a court approved settlement agreement to finalize
critical habitat for the species. The effect of this regulation is to
conserve the habitat upon which dusky gopher frog depends.
DATES: This rule becomes effective on July 12, 2012.
ADDRESSES: This final rule and the associated final economic analysis
are available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Comments
and materials received, as well as supporting documentation used in
preparing this final rule, are available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office, 6578
Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; telephone: 601-321-1122;
facsimile: 601-965-4340.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Ecological Services Field
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:
Executive Summary
Why we need to publish a rule. Under the Endangered Species Act, we
are required to designate critical habitat for any endangered or
threatened species if prudent and determinable and we must issue a rule
to designate critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat for the
dusky gopher frog was found to be prudent and a proposed rule to
designate critical habitat was published on June 3, 2010. We
subsequently reproposed critical habitat on September 27, 2011, and
announced the availability of an economic analysis. Pursuant to a
court-approved settlement agreement, we must deliver to the Federal
Register our final designation of critical habitat for the dusky gopher
frog on or before May 30, 2012. This action fulfills our obligations
under the Act and the settlement agreement.
This rule designates critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog.
Approximately 625 hectares (1,544 acres) are designated as
critical habitat in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
Approximately 1,996 hectares (4,933 acres) are designated
as critical habitat in Forrest, Harrison, Jackson, and Perry Counties,
Mississippi.
In total, approximately 2,621 hectares (ha) (6,477 acres
(ac)) are designated as critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog.
Peer reviewers support our methods. We solicited expert opinions
from seven knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that
included familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which
the species occurs, and conservation biology principles. We received
responses from six of the peer reviewers. The peer reviewers generally
concurred with our methods and conclusions, and provided additional
information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final
critical habitat rule.
Background
It is our intent to discuss in this final rule only those topics
directly relevant to the development and designation of critical
habitat for the dusky gopher frog under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). For more information on
the biology and ecology of the dusky gopher frog, refer to the final
listing rule published in the Federal Register on December 4, 2001 (66
FR 62993). For additional information on dusky gopher frog critical
habitat, refer to the revised proposed rule to designate critical
habitat for the dusky gopher frog published in the Federal Register on
September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59774) and the announcement of the public
hearing for the revised proposed rule published in the Federal Register
on January 17, 2012 (77 FR 2254).
Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Subsequent to the listing of the dusky gopher frog (=Mississippi
gopher frog), taxonomic research was completed that indicated that the
entity (which we listed as a DPS of the dusky gopher frog (Rana capito
[sic] sevosa)) is different from other gopher frogs and warrants
acceptance as its own species (Young and Crother 2001, pp. 382-388).
The herpetological scientific community accepted this taxonomic change
and the scientific name for the species was changed to Rana sevosa. In
addition, all comments on taxonomy that we received during the comment
periods for the revised critical habitat proposal were in agreement
that the frog warrants acceptance as its own species. Therefore,
listing as a DPS is no longer appropriate. The taxonomic change meant
that a change in the common name from Mississippi gopher frog to dusky
gopher frog was appropriate (Crother et al. 2003, p. 197). Most
comments we received on this subject indicated that we should change
the common name to dusky gopher frog from Mississippi gopher frog.
Therefore, although in the revised proposed critical habitat rule (76
FR 59774) we stated that we would continue to use the common name
``Mississippi gopher frog'' we now believe the common name dusky gopher
frog should be used to describe the listed species rather than
Mississippi gopher frog and, in this rule, we use the common name
``dusky gopher frog'' for this species.
We received other comments on changes that have been proposed in
the scientific literature regarding removing the genus name Rana from a
group of North American frogs and replacing it with the genus
Lithobates (see Crother 2008, p. 7). There is still reluctance by some
in the scientific community to accept this change (Hillis 2007, p. 331;
Pauly et al. 2009, p. 115; Wiens et al. 2009, p. 1220). Until there is
a clear consensus within the scientific community, we will continue to
use the scientific name of Rana sevosa for the dusky gopher frog.
Previous Federal Actions
The dusky gopher frog was listed as an endangered species under the
Act on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62993). The species was at that time
identified as the Mississippi gopher frog, Rana capito sevosa, a
distinct population segment of the dusky gopher frog (Rana capito) (see
Taxonomy and Nomenclature discussion above). At the time of listing,
the Service found that designation of critical habitat was prudent.
However, the development of a designation was
[[Page 35119]]
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 dusky 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. Designation of critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog was
again found to be prudent, and a proposed rule to designate critical
habitat for the dusky 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 their belief that the
amount of critical habitat proposed was insufficient for the
conservation of the dusky gopher frog and that additional habitat
should be considered throughout the historic 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 that there was additional habitat in Louisiana that would aid
in the conservation of dusky gopher frogs. Based on this new
information, we asked the plaintiffs to agree to an extension of the
deadline that was established by the original settlement. Plaintiffs
agreed, and 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. A revised proposed critical habitat rule was published in the
Federal Register on September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59774) and replaced our
June 3, 2010 (75 FR 31387), proposed critical habitat rule in its
entirety.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
We requested written comments from the public on the revised
proposed designation of critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog
during two comment periods. The first comment period, associated with
the publication of the revised proposed rule and notification of the
availability of the associated draft economic analysis (76 FR 59774),
opened on September 27, 2011 and closed on November 28, 2011. The
second comment period, associated with a public hearing held on January
31, 2012, in Gulfport, Mississippi, opened on January 17, 2012 and
closed on March 2, 2012. We also contacted appropriate Federal, State,
and local agencies; scientific organizations; and other interested
parties, and invited them to comment on the revised proposed rule and
draft economic analysis during these comment periods.
During the first comment period, we received 46 comment letters
directly addressing the revised critical habitat designation or the
draft economic analysis. During the second comment period, we received
57 comment letters directly addressing the revised proposed critical
habitat designation or the draft economic analysis. During the January
31, 2012, public hearing, 19 individuals or organizations made comments
on the proposed designation. All substantive information provided
during comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this
final determination or is addressed in our responses below. Public
comments we received were grouped into six general categories.
Peer Review
In accordance with our peer review policy published in the Federal
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited expert opinions
from seven knowledgeable individuals with scientific expertise that
included familiarity with the species, the geographic region in which
the species occurs, and conservation biology principles. We received
responses from six of the peer reviewers.
We reviewed all comments we received from the peer reviewers for
substantive issues and new information regarding critical habitat for
the dusky gopher frog. The peer reviewers generally concurred with our
methods and conclusions, and provided additional information,
clarifications, and suggestions to improve the final critical habitat
rule. Peer reviewer comments are addressed in the following summary and
incorporated into the final rule as appropriate.
Peer Reviewer Comments
Comment 1: All peer reviewers agreed that although Rana capito
sevosa was listed as a distinct population segment of Rana capito, the
listed entity has now been accepted by the scientific community as a
unique species, Rana sevosa. All but one of the peer reviewers agreed
with our proposed change of the common name of the listed entity from
Mississippi gopher frog to dusky gopher frog. Two of the peer reviewers
suggested changing the scientific name of Rana sevosa to Lithobates
sevosus based on recent publications in the scientific literature.
However, one of these peer reviewers stated that although the four
major herpetological societies require authors submitting papers to
their publications to use the standard English names of Crother (2008,
p. 8) [=dusky gopher frog], authors may use their discretion on the
scientific name used (within scientific reason and with citation when
needed).
Our Response: See ``Taxonomy and Nomenclature'' above. The Service
is changing the name of the listed entity to Rana sevosa, the dusky
gopher frog. However, because disagreement exists in the scientific
community regarding the taxonomic support for replacing Rana with
Lithobates, the Service believes it is not yet appropriate to make this
change for the listed entity.
Comment 2: All of the peer reviewers agreed that it was appropriate
that the Service had increased the size of the critical habitat units
in the September 27, 2011 revised proposed rule. Nevertheless, there
was some disagreement among the peer reviewers about whether the
increase was adequate for the conservation of the dusky gopher frog,
and this was reflected in their comments regarding the methods used to
define the individual units. All of the peer reviewers approved of
combining the maximum distance movements of the two species of gopher
frogs for use in the determination of the size of individual critical
habitat units; however, two of the peer reviewers, and others, provided
specific comments on our use of these data. The comments included:
Combining movement data from studies of the same population; deleting
anecdotal observations from single frogs not incorporated into larger
studies; using the mean rather than the median to calculate the value
used to define the area around each breeding pond; and increasing the
area of critical habitat beyond the value calculated from the movement
data to account for areas of poor upland habitat quality. One peer
reviewer stressed the need to maximize the size of critical habitat
units due to the uncertainty of habitat suitability when creating
circular areas of protection and due to the reduction in dusky gopher
frog genetic variability resulting from the species' habitat isolation
and small population size.
Our Response: In our January 17, 2012, publication (77 FR 2254), we
reopened the comment period and
[[Page 35120]]
announced a public hearing on the revised proposed critical habitat
designation. We also proposed changes in the data analysis that had
been used in creating the critical habitat units in the revised
proposed rule, and requested comments on these changes. The changes
included combining movement data from individual sites and removing one
anecdotal gopher frog movement record from our maximum distance
dataset. The Service did not receive any comments on these changes from
peer reviewers or the public. We continue to believe, as was expressed
by one of the peer reviewers, that the use of the median distance value
in our calculations is more appropriate than using the mean. The use of
the mean would yield a higher value because the maximum distance values
are skewed toward larger values and the mean is more influenced by
these values when compared to the median. To illustrate the possible
bias in using the mean rather than the median, one reviewer pointed out
that the greatest maximum distance movement was on a site where burrow
habitat in the uplands was severely limited and the frogs had to move
long distances to find appropriate fossorial (underground) habitat. We
believe the use of the median long distance movement value provides a
better estimate of central tendency in our dataset, and we consider its
use more appropriate than the mean. The Service agrees that there are
likely differences in habitat suitability in the various critical
habitat units, and we have tried to account for that by using the
median maximum distance value, plus a buffer, in calculating the area
to include in critical habitat surrounding each occupied or unoccupied
breeding pond (see ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat''
below).
Comments From States
Section 4(i) of the Act states, ``the Secretary shall submit to the
State agency a written justification for his failure to adopt
regulations consistent with the agency's comments or petition.'' The
only comment received from a State agency was from an employee of a
State agency that was a peer reviewer of the revised proposed rule.
This comment was in support of the revised proposal as written.
Public Comments
General Comments Issue 1: Critical Habitat Delineation Methodology
Comment 3: If the delineation of critical habitat for the dusky
gopher frog is based on the best available science, there is no
biological reason to include movement data from other gopher frogs
(Rana capito) and not include movement data from crawfish frogs (R.
areolata). The two gopher frog species and crawfish frogs share derived
morphological and behavioral characters that separate them from all
other frog species. One of their shared behavioral traits is an
affinity for small terrestrial cavities.
Our Response: The two species of gopher frogs (Rana capito and R.
sevosa) share similar habitat within different geographic areas of the
longleaf pine ecosystem in the southeastern United States. As adults,
all gopher frogs occupy below-ground habitat within the forested
uplands, typically stump holes, small mammal burrows, and when they are
available, gopher tortoise burrows. Crawfish frogs occur outside the
range of gopher frogs and are distributed to the east and west of the
Mississippi River in an arc from the eastern Gulf Coast of Texas north
to southern Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky, and south across
western Tennessee, north and central Mississippi, and northeastern
Louisiana (Parris and Redmer 2005, p. 526). Crawfish frogs occupy a
wide variety of habitats including open wet woodlands, wooded valleys,
prairies, river floodplains, pine forest, wet pastures, and grasslands
(Parris and Redmer 2005, p. 527). Adult crawfish frogs use fossorial
habitats, commonly occupying abandoned crayfish burrows (Parris and
Redmer 2005, p. 527). Although adult dusky gopher frogs also use
fossorial habitats (abandoned mammal burrows, stump holes), the Service
considers the differences in geography and habitat between the two
species to be too great to include crawfish frog movement data in our
critical habitat calculations.
Comment 4: The amount of area designated as critical habitat around
occupied or unoccupied dusky gopher frog breeding ponds should be
increased. One commenter requested a general increase in area only
around the four occupied sites. Another commenter wanted the Service to
go back to using a 650-m (2,133-ft) radius around all sites as was used
to construct critical habitat units in our September 27, 2011, revised
proposed rule (76 FR 59774). In addition, that commenter requested the
radius be increased to 1,000 m (3,281 ft) around Glen's Pond when
constructing the critical habitat unit at that site.
Our Response: see Section ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat'' below for a discussion of our rationale for constructing
individual critical habitat units. The Service used the best available
scientific information on gopher frog movements to quantify the areas
we are designating as critical habitat. We have found no scientific
justification for using a larger radius when constructing some units
over others. In the future, if such data become available, under the
authority of section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii) the Secretary could revise the
designation, as appropriate.
General Comments Issue 2: Procedural and Legal Issues
Comment 5: The Endangered Species Act and the proposed designation
of critical habitat are unconstitutional and the Service lacks
authority to regulate the dusky gopher frog under the Commerce Clause
of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.
The U.S. Supreme Court defined the limits of the Commerce Clause by
mandating that (i) Congress may only regulate an activity that
``substantially affect(s)'' interstate commerce, and (ii) there must be
a rational basis for Congress' conclusion that the regulated activity
sufficiently affects interstate commerce. The Service did not cite any
link whatsoever between the designation of critical habitat for the
frog and commerce, be it travel, tourism, scientific research, or
agriculture. Designation of critical habitat will ``result in a
significant impingement of the States' traditional and primary power
over land and water use'' and this effective control is not justified
because there is no Federal interest in regulation of interstate
commerce relative to the dusky gopher frog.
Our Response: The constitutionality of the Act in authorizing the
Services' protection of endangered and threatened species has
consistently been upheld by the courts. see, e.g., GDF Realty
Investments, Ltd. v. Norton, 326 F .3d 622 (5th Cir. 2003); Gibbs v.
Babbitt, 214 F.3d 483 (4th Cir. 2000); National Association of
Homebuilders v. Babbitt, 130 F.3d 1041 (D.C. Cir. 1997), cert. denied,
524 U.S. 937 (1998); Rancho Viejo v. Norton, 323 F.3d 1062 (D.C. Cir.
2003); and United States v. Hill, 896 F. Supp. 1057 (D. Colo. 1995).
The courts have held that regulation under the Act to protect species
that live only in one State is within Congress' Commerce Clause power
and that loss of animal diversity has a substantial effect on
interstate commerce. National Ass'n of Home Builders, 130 F.3d at 1050-
51; see Rancho Viejo, 323 F.3d at 310, n. 5. Thus, although the dusky
gopher frog is currently known to occur only within the State of
Mississippi, the Service's application of the Act to designate critical
habitat for this species is constitutional.
[[Page 35121]]
Comment 6: Designation of private property as critical habitat
constitutes a ``taking'' of private property under the 5th Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution by depriving landowners of the economically
beneficial use of their land. As a result of the designation, the
property will be pressed into ``public service'' without compensation
to the landowners.
Our Response: The Service analyzed the potential takings
implications of designating critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog
and included this analysis in our administrative record. Determining
whether a constitutional taking will occur is a matter for the courts.
However the process is generally fact-specific and involves weighing
the character of the government action, the economic impact of that
action, and the reasonableness of the property owner's investment-
backed expectations. We have identified two ``taking'' scenarios that
are relevant to the designation of critical habitat. The first is a
physical taking when the government's action amounts to a physical
occupation or invasion of the property, including the functional
equivalent of a practical ouster of the owner's possession. The
proposed designation of critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog
would not result in physical occupation or invasion of private
property. On non-Federal lands, activities that lack Federal
involvement, such as timber management and oil and gas extraction,
would not be affected by the critical habitat designation. However, a
second scenario concerns activities of an economic nature that are
likely to occur on non-Federal lands in the area encompassed by this
designation, and where Federal involvement may occur, and includes
construction of utilities, residential or commercial development, and
road construction and maintenance. This second scenario is where a
regulation may potentially deny all economically beneficial or
productive use of land, commonly referred to as a categorical taking.
However, the mere promulgation of a regulation designating critical
habitat does not on its face deny property owners all economically
viable use of their land. The Act does not automatically restrict all
uses of lands that have been designated as critical habitat, but only
imposes restrictions under section 7(a)(2) on Federal agency actions
that may result in destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat. Furthermore, as discussed above, if a biological opinion
concludes that a proposed action is likely to result in the destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat, we are required to suggest
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the action that would avoid the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Such
alternatives must be economically, as well as technologically, feasible
(50 CFR 402.02).
Comment 7: The Service has no delegated authority to regulate or
confiscate private land.
Our Response: When prudent, the Service is required to designate
critical habitat under the Act. The Act does not authorize the Service
to regulate private actions on private lands or confiscate private
property as a result of critical habitat designation (see further
explanation under Comment 6 above).
Comment 8: The Service did not comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). The Ninth
Circuit's holding that NEPA does not apply to critical habitat
designations rested in part on supposition that the action at issue
does not alter the natural, untouched physical environment at all.
Therefore, as maintenance of critical habitat requires special
management, which can be interpreted as human interference with the
environment, a NEPA review is required.
Our Response: Environmental assessments and environmental impact
statements, as defined under NEPA, are not required for regulations
enacted under section 4 of the Act (see 48 FR 49244, October 25, 1983).
The Service has determined that, outside of the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, a NEPA analysis is not
required for critical habitat designation.
The fact that a physical or biological feature requires special
management considerations or protection to meet the definition of
``critical habitat'' does not mean that the designation of critical
habitat would include ``special management'' requiring active
maintenance or any other form of human interference with property. In
the case of unoccupied habitat, the ``physical/biological features/
special management'' part of the definition simply does not apply.
Thus, the designation of critical habitat does not constitute the sort
of human interference that would require a NEPA analysis.
Comment 9: In order to determine what is ``essential to the
conservation of the species,'' the Service must first identify ``the
point'' when the species will no longer be ``endangered'' or
``threatened''. That point can be identified only if the Service has
determined a viable population size and the minimum habitat necessary
to sustain that population. These threshold determinations are missing
from the proposed rule. The failure to articulate a basis for
designating each unit as critical habitat is a violation of the law
that must be corrected.
Our Response: During the process of developing a recovery plan, as
required by Section 4(f) of the Act, the Service determines the
threshold that must be met to establish when a species is no longer
``endangered'' or ``threatened''. The Service has not yet completed a
recovery plan for the dusky gopher frog, and thus, this threshold has
not been defined. However, the Act does not require that recovery
criteria be established as a precondition to designating critical
habitat. Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines the term ``critical
habitat'' as (i) the specific areas within the geographical area
occupied by the species, at the time it is listed * * * on which are
found those physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the species and which may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) 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. The Act does not provide additional
guidance on how to determine what habitat is essential for the
conservation of the species, nor does it require a minimum population
and habitat viability analysis for critical habitat designation. In
this case, the Secretary has discretion in determining what is
essential for the conservation of a species. The Service has studied
the one dusky gopher frog population known at the time of listing to
determine the habitat attributes essential to the conservation of the
species, and determined that the primary constituent elements (PCEs)
specific to the dusky gopher frog are: (1) Ephemeral wetland habitat
(PCE 1); (2) upland forested nonbreeding habitat (PCE 2); and (3)
upland connectivity habitat (PCE 3) (see ``Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat'' below). With regard to units/subunits not known to
be occupied at the time of listing, we have determined that these areas
are essential to the conservation of the dusky gopher frog because this
species 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.
[[Page 35122]]
Therefore, the Service believes that all the areas designated as
critical habitat meet the definition under section 3(5)(A) of the Act.
If the Service gains knowledge of additional areas that meet the
definition of critical habitat, then under section 4(a)(3)(A)(ii) of
the Act, the Secretary may revise the designation, as appropriate. The
Service has articulated a basis for designating each unit as critical
habitat under the individual unit descriptions in Final Critical
Habitat Designation.
Comment 10: The Service has failed to meet the ``prudent and
determinable'' standard of section 4(a)(3) of the Act. In fact, the
Service was required to immediately ``find'' critical habitat for the
dusky gopher frog as a result of a court settlement with the Center for
Biological Diversity.
Our Response: see ``Previous Federal Actions.'' The dusky gopher
frog was listed as an endangered species under the Act on December 4,
2001 (66 FR 62993), and at that time the Service found that designation
of critical habitat was prudent. 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 dusky gopher frog. 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 new prudency determination was included in our proposed rule to
designate critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog published on June
3, 2010 (75 FR 31387). Based on new scientific information we received
during the comment period for this proposed rule, the Service requested
and received a modification to the settlement agreement, signed on May
4, 2011. The Service complied with the settlement agreement and made
another prudency determination in our revised proposed rule to
designate critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog (76 FR 59774,
September 27, 2011) which replaced the 2010 proposed rule in its
entirety. Thus, the settlement agreement did not force the Service to
``find'' critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog, but rather
complete a new prudency determination and only proceed with a proposed,
and ultimately, a final designation of critical habitat if deemed
prudent.
Comment 11: The Service did not contact all landowners potentially
affected by the proposed designation of critical habitat.
Our Response: The Act requires that we publish the proposed
regulation in the Federal Register, give actual notice of the proposed
regulation to each affected state and county (i.e., those in which the
species is believed to occur), appropriate professional organizations,
and publish a summary of the proposed regulation in a newspaper of
general circulation in each area of the U.S. where the species is
believed to occur. It also requires that we promptly hold one public
hearing if any person files a request within 45 days of the publication
(in the Federal Register). When we were able to identify the landowners
of a proposed critical habitat unit, we contacted them directly. In
addition, we attempted to ensure that as many people as possible would
be aware of the revised proposed critical habitat designation, draft
economic analysis, and public hearing by issuing press releases to all
major media in the affected area, submitting newspaper notices for
publication within areas of revised proposed critical habitat, and
directly notifying affected State and Federal agencies, environmental
groups, State Governors, Federal and State elected officials, and
county commissions. We accepted comments from September 27, 2011,
through November 28, 2011, and from January 17, 2012, through March 2,
2012, for a total of 105 days. We sent out notifications of the second
comment period to commenters from the first comment period when they
had supplied their contact information. By these actions, we have
complied with or exceeded all of the notification requirements of the
Act and the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. subchapter II).
Comment 12: One commenter expressed opposition to Federal
acquisition of 16th Section land unless the land is purchased at full
replacement value or fair market lease without loss and hardship to
schools and without increasing local homeowners' tax burden to recoup
the losses from such a transaction.
Our Response: Designation of critical habitat on land does not
constitute ``Federal acquisition'' of that land. The Service has no
plans to acquire ownership of any land designated as critical habitat.
The commenter referred to ``16th section'' lands. This designation is
based on the original surveys of the country in the late 1700's when
land was systematically surveyed into square townships, 9.656 km (6
miles) on a side. The townships were subdivided into 36 sections of
2.59 km\2\ (1 mi\2\). Section 16 in each township was reserved for the
maintenance of public schools. This system remains in place in
Mississippi and funds derived from ``16th section'' lands are used to
support county funding for public schools. Our intention is to work
with existing landowners, including the State of Mississippi, which
owns 16th Section lands, to further the recovery of the dusky gopher
frog.
Comment 13: Critical habitat designation may limit conservation
actions in other areas.
Our Response: The Service will work on actions to support the
recovery of the dusky gopher frog wherever possible, including outside
the geographic area designated as critical habitat.
General Comments Issue 3: Critical Habitat Designation on Private
Land--General
Comment 14: Critical habitat designation on private land will
prevent future timber management and development within the designated
area. Property owners within one mile of critical habitat could be
affected by the designation. Private property owners will be burdened
with consultation under section 7 of the Act as a result of the
critical habitat designation. The Service should restrict critical
habitat on private land to landowners that voluntarily participate in
the recovery of endangered and threatened species.
Our Response: The selection of sites to be included in critical
habitat is based, first and foremost, on the needs of the species.
Before we determine land ownership, we consider what is needed for
species conservation based on the best available scientific and
commercial information. This ensures that the best locations to support
species' conservation are identified and increases awareness among all
potential partners of the best known sites to support the conservation
of the species.
The designation of critical habitat does not impose a legally
binding duty on private parties. Activities that do not involve a
Federal agency, Federal action, Federal funding, or Federal permitting,
will be unaffected by the designation of critical habitat. Private land
use activities, such as farming and silviculture, would be unaffected.
Federal activities, or actions permitted, licensed, or funded by
Federal agencies, will require consultation with the Service if they
are likely to adversely modify critical habitat. Consultation is a
process by which Federal agencies use the Service's expertise to
evaluate the potential effects of a proposed action on species listed
under the Act and their critical habitats. The Service works with
Federal agencies to identify alternatives where activities or projects
may proceed
[[Page 35123]]
without adverse modification to critical habitat. For example, if
private landowners wish to develop their property and are required by
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to obtain a wetlands dredge
and fill permit, this would trigger consultation under section 7 of the
Act between the Corps and the Service if critical habitat is designated
on the property; however, the Service would work with the Corps to
identify strategies to avoid adverse modification of critical habitat.
Based on our experience with section 7 consultations for other listed
species, virtually all projects--including those that, in their initial
proposed form, would result in jeopardy or adverse modification--can be
implemented successfully with, at most, the adoption of reasonable and
prudent alternatives. Reasonable and prudent alternatives must, by
definition, be economically feasible and within the scope of authority
of the Federal agency involved in consultation.
If there is no activity on private property involving a Federal
agency, Federal action, Federal funding, or Federal permitting,
participation in the recovery of endangered and threatened species is
voluntary. Critical habitat designation does not require property
owners to undertake affirmative actions to promote the recovery of the
listed species. There is no effect to landowners whose property is
outside the specific area designated as critical habitat, no matter the
ownership (see response to Comment 6).
General Comments Issue 4: Critical Habitat Designation on Private
Land--Louisiana
Comment 15: The dusky gopher frog has not been seen in Louisiana
since 1965, and the habitat designated as Critical Habitat Unit 1 (Unit
1) has none of the primary constituent elements (PCEs) described in the
revised proposed rule; the ponds in Unit 1, in their present condition,
do not constitute suitable dusky gopher frog habitat under the
definition of PCE 1. Although the Service's interest in Unit 1 is
caused in part by the perceived difficulty in establishing ephemeral
ponds for the dusky gopher frog, artificial ponding has supported
gopher frog reproduction. Unit 1 will never have PCEs due to on-going
timber management of the site, which precludes burning or planting
longleaf pine trees to improve the upland habitat for the gopher frog.
The dusky gopher frog will never be present on site because the
landowners object to moving them there. The Service cannot designate
critical habitat on the grounds that the PCEs will be present in the
future.
Our Response: The site in Louisiana identified as Unit 1 contains
at least two historic breeding sites for the dusky gopher frog. Unit 1
is not currently occupied nor was it occupied at the time the dusky
gopher frog was listed. For such areas, which are outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed,
section 3(5)(A)(ii) of the Act requires simply that critical habitat be
designated based on a determination that such areas are essential for
the conservation of the species. Due to the importance of ephemeral
ponds to the recovery of the dusky gopher frog (see ``Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat''), the Service determined that the area of
Unit 1 is essential for the conservation of the dusky gopher frog. The
only pond occupied at the time of listing is being designated and we
determined that this one location is not sufficient to conserve the
species. Additional areas that were not known to be occupied at the
time of listing are essential for the conservation of the species.
Although the presence of the PCEs is not a necessary element for this
determination, the Service believes Unit 1 contains the PCE described
as Primary Constituent Element 1--Ephemeral wetland habitat (see
Section ``Primary Constituent Elements for the Dusky Gopher Frog'')
based on the best available data, which include the visits made to the
site by Service personnel and other gopher frog experts. During these
visits, the Service assessed the habitat quality of ephemeral wetlands
in this area and found that a series of five ponds contained the
habitat requirements for PCE 1 (see response to Comment 16 below).
The Service is aware borrow pits and other sites constructed by man
have been used for breeding by other species of gopher frogs outside
the range of the dusky gopher frog. Nevertheless, these sites need to
contain the same features that are present in natural ponds in order
for them to provide the proper environment for successful development
of metamorphic dusky gopher frogs. Ephemeral, isolated ponds are very
difficult to establish in the landscape due to their short and specific
hydrology. The ponds have to hold water long enough to allow for
tadpole development and metamorphosis, but if they hold water too long
they become permanent ponds and no longer have value for ephemeral
pond-breeding amphibians. The U.S. Forest Service, in cooperation with
the Service and our partners, constructed a pond on the DeSoto National
Forest with the goal of creating a dusky gopher frog breeding site. It
has taken 10 years to reach the point where we consider this pond ready
to be used as a reintroduction site, and its value as a breeding site
has not yet been proven. It is highly unlikely that five ponds, similar
to those that currently exist in Unit 1, could be created in the
landscape within a timeframe that would provide near-term conservation
benefits to the dusky gopher frog.
During the process of delineating critical habitat, the Service
assesses habitat to determine if it is essential for the conservation
of a listed species. Although we have no existing agreements with the
private landowners of Unit 1 to manage this site to improve habitat for
the dusky gopher frog, or to move the species there, we hope to work
with the landowners to develop a strategy that will allow them to
achieve their objectives for the property and protect the isolated,
ephemeral ponds that exist there. According to the landowners, the
timber lease on their property does not expire until 2043. The Service
has a number of tools, such as habitat conservation plans, that could
be used to formalize the timber management goals of the landowners and
work towards recovery of the dusky gopher frog. There are also
programs, such as the Healthy Forests Initiative administered through
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation
Service, that provide funding to private landowners for habitat
management. However, these tools and programs are voluntary, and
actions such as habitat management through prescribed burning, or frog
translocations to the site, cannot be implemented without the
cooperation and permission of the landowner.
Comment 16: The Service has not provided sufficient support for the
argument that Unit 1 is ``essential for the conservation'' of the dusky
gopher frog, only a ``more is better'' statement that Unit 1 provides
additional habitat for population expansion. ``Essential for
conservation of the species,'' the standard for designating critical
habitat on unoccupied sites, is a more exacting standard than that for
determining critical habitat designation of occupied habitat. The Act
requires a demonstration that the designation of unoccupied habitat is
essential for conservation, not essential to decreasing the risk of
extinction of the species. The Service must provide a factual basis
supporting the conclusion that Unit 1 is essential to recovery of the
dusky gopher frog.
Our Response: The scientific peer reviewers that responded to our
original proposed critical habitat rule were
[[Page 35124]]
united in their assessment that this proposal was inadequate for the
conservation of the dusky gopher frog and that we should look within
the species' historic range outside the state of Mississippi for
additional habitat for the designation. As a result of the peer review,
we conducted a reanalysis of current and historic data for the species,
including data from Alabama and Louisiana, to determine if we could
find additional habitat that would meet the definition of critical
habitat (see Comment 17, below, for discussion of habitat in Alabama).
As a result of the rarity of open-canopied, isolated, ephemeral ponds
within the historic range of the dusky gopher frog, and their
importance to survival of the species, identifying more of these ponds
was the primary focus of our reanalysis (see ``Criteria Used To
Identify Critical Habitat'', below).
The Service visited the area designated as Unit 1 in St. Tammany
Parish, Louisiana, in 2011. We conducted a habitat assessment in this
specific area because at least two historic breeding ponds for the
dusky gopher frog occur there, including the one where the species was
last seen in 1965. We determined that five isolated, ephemeral wetlands
in that area are similar to ponds where dusky gopher frogs currently
breed in Mississippi. The five ponds are in close proximity to each
other, which provides metapopulation structure and increases the unit's
value to the long-term survival and recovery of the frogs over an area
with a single breeding pond (see ``Space for Individual and Population
Growth and for Normal Behavior'', below).
The role of critical habitat is to support the life-history needs
of the species and provide for conservation. Conservation is defined in
section 3(3) of the Act as the use of all methods and procedures which
are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to
the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no
longer necessary (recovery). Recovery of the dusky gopher frog will not
be possible without the establishment of additional breeding
populations of the species. Isolated, ephemeral ponds that can be used
as the focal point for establishing these populations are rare, and
this is a limiting factor in dusky gopher frog recovery. Based on the
best scientific information available to the Service, the five ponds in
Unit 1 provide breeding habitat that in its totality is not known to be
present elsewhere within the historic range of the dusky gopher frog.
The isolated populations of the dusky gopher frog face many
threats, including droughts and disease. These environmental and
biological threats are likely to occur at the same time at sites near
each other. Habitat in Louisiana is distant from the extant populations
of the dusky gopher frog. For this reason, the Louisiana site would
likely be affected by different environmental variables than sites in
Mississippi. Thus, Unit 1 provides a refuge for the frog should the
other sites be negatively affected by environmental threats or
catastrophic events. An example of one of these threats is climate
change. Climate change will undoubtedly affect amphibians throughout
the world in the coming decades (Lawler et al. 2010, p. 38). For
species such as the dusky gopher frog, one of the greatest threats
posed by climate change is water availability. The amount and timing of
precipitation can have dramatic effects on ephemeral breeding ponds,
resulting in mortality of eggs and larvae. In addition, post-
metamorphic survivorship may be reduced by increased desiccation risk.
Dusky gopher frogs will be susceptible to the effects of rapid climate
change due to their limited natural ability to move through the
landscape, and habitat fragmentation. Hydrological changes to ponds at
the currently occupied sites could mean extinction for this species.
The designation of critical habitat, and the creation of new
populations of dusky gopher frogs through reintroductions, should give
the species better odds of survival and recovery given the threats
posed by climate change.
In summary, the Service believes Unit 1 is essential to the
conservation of the dusky gopher frog because it provides: (1) Breeding
habitat for the dusky gopher frog in a landscape where the rarity of
that habitat is a primary threat to the species; (2) a framework of
breeding ponds that supports metapopulation structure important to the
long-term survival of the dusky gopher frog; and (3) geographic
distance from extant dusky gopher frog populations, which likely
provides protection from environmental stochasticity.
Comment 17: The site in Louisiana (Unit 1) was chosen without
regard to available habitat for the dusky gopher frog in Alabama.
Alabama contains habitat that provides more of the PCEs needed for the
dusky gopher frog to survive than in Unit 1, and the Service provided
no assertion that Alabama ponds are not essential for the conservation
of the dusky gopher frog. The standard the Service applied to
designating critical habitat areas was that they would provide
``additional habitat'' and this standard could just as easily be
applied to Alabama as to Louisiana. Nevertheless, critical habitat may
only include areas ``essential to the conservation of the species.''
The Service's failure to apply a consistent or correct standard for
determining critical habitat is arbitrary and prohibited by the
Administrative Procedure Act.
Our Response: Peer reviewers of our original proposed rule
indicated that critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog in the
proposal (76 FR 59774, September 27, 2011) was inadequate for the
conservation of the dusky gopher frog. Thus, the Service conducted a
habitat reassessment, which included areas outside of Mississippi that
are within the species' historic range in Louisiana and Alabama (see
Comment 16 and ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat'', below).
In Alabama, the only record for the dusky gopher frog, as currently
described, is from 1922 at a location in Mobile County near Mobile Bay.
The upland terrestrial habitat at this site has been destroyed and
replaced by a residential development (Bailey 1994, p. 5). A breeding
site that might have been used by these frogs has never been found. Two
remote sensing studies (Hart 2004, pp. 1-9: Bailey 2009, pp. 1-14) have
been conducted to search for ponds and terrestrial habitat that might
support dusky gopher frog populations. Those ponds identified using
aerial photography which were visited did not contain habitat that
provides a conservation benefit for dusky gopher frogs. Habitat was
poor because of a number of factors which limited its suitability for
dusky gopher frogs. For example, ponds contained woody shrubs and
trees, were occupied by fish, occurred within agricultural fields, and/
or were surrounded by trailers and houses (Hart 2004, pp. 8-9). As
there are no data supporting the occurrence of historic or current
dusky gopher frog breeding sites in Alabama, nor any habitat of a
quality certain to support conservation of the frog, the Service could
not identify areas in Alabama that we believed essential for the
conservation of the species in Alabama (see ``Criteria Used To Identify
Critical Habitat'', below). The Service does not have data, nor did any
commenter provide data, to support the assertion that habitat in
Alabama provides more of the PCEs needed for the dusky gopher frog to
survive than in Unit 1.
Comment 18: Unit 1 is not ``essential'' to the survival of the frog
because most of the proposed critical habitat occurs
[[Page 35125]]
on the DeSoto National Forest where the frogs can thrive.
Our Response: Critical habitat is a conservation tool. Conservation
measures are a means to reach recovery and the point at which the
measures provided under the Act are no longer necessary. This is a
broader standard than simply survival and requires the Service to
designate critical habitat that will support recovery of the species.
DeSoto National Forest (DNF) represents only one area of the historic
distribution of the dusky gopher frog. Although DNF is crucial to the
survival of the frog because the majority of the remaining frogs occur
there, recovery of the species will require populations of dusky gopher
frog distributed across a broader portion of the species' historic
distribution. Critical habitat will support recovery of the dusky
gopher frog by protecting sites across a large area of the species'
historic range and providing space for population expansion, including
in areas that will provide protection from the effects of local
catastrophic events. See also our response to Comment 16.
General Comments Issue 5: Critical Habitat Designation on Lands Leased
to the Military
Comment 19: The Department of Defense, Army National Guard (DOD)
opposes designation of critical habitat in areas within the Camp Shelby
training site on DeSoto National Forest (DNF), Forrest County,
Mississippi. DOD is concerned that the designation may negatively
impact convoy and dismounted infantry training, and that the
designation will be an additional financial burden on the military
because DOD reimburses the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for habitat
management in the Special Use Permit (SUP) area. Although there are
restrictions to military use of the SUP based on guidelines set up for
red-cockaded woodpecker population recovery and protection, DOD
believes training limitations would be more restrictive for a
terrestrial (ground-dwelling) species. Additionally, DOD believes the
proposed designation may affect plans to develop new training
facilities within the proposed critical habitat areas, which are
outlined in long-range planning documents. DOD believes that Camp
Shelby training site should be excluded from the critical habitat
designation, as authorized by section 4(b)(2) of the Act, due to
significant national security concerns.
Our Response: DOD has a SUP from USFS to conduct military exercises
in Units 10, 11, and 12 of critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog
in DNF. Permitted use by the military includes driving military
vehicles on existing roads, and bivouacking or orienteering in the
forested areas. No live ammunition can be used in the area, and
wetlands are excluded from military use. This area of the DNF is also
designated as the Leaf River Wildlife Management Area and is actively
used by the public for hunting and other recreational activities. The
area is managed by the USFS for timber and to benefit the recovery of
the red-cockaded woodpecker. The Service has been working with our USFS
partners for many years on habitat improvements in this area to benefit
the recovery of the dusky gopher frog. The Service anticipates that no
additional restrictions on military use of the area will result from
the designation of critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog. Under
terms of the SUP, DOD management responsibilities relative to the
training area involve reimbursing USFS for damage to habitat within the
DNF that is incurred during military exercises, whether or not critical
habitat is designated there. However, additional incremental impacts to
military activities are not expected because areas we designated as
dusky gopher frog critical habitat areas used by Camp Shelby are
located within a habitat management area (HMA) already established and
managed for the red-cockaded woodpecker. The Service believes that the
existing limitations to military activities occurring within the HMA
are sufficiently protective of the gopher frog. A further discussion of
the existing limitations to military activities occurring within the
HMA has been added to the final economic analysis (FEA).
General Comments Issue 6: Science
Comment 20: The Service failed to consider sound science when
developing the revised proposed rule. The designation of Unit 1 as
critical habitat is deeply flawed for scientific reasons and violates
the Presidential Memorandum of Scientific Integrity. The agency actions
for this designation are wholly devoid of sound science and undermine
public trust.
Our Response: Comments questioning aspects of the methodology and
data used in our revised proposed designation of critical habitat for
the dusky gopher frog have been addressed above under Comments 2, 3, 4,
8, 15, 16, 17, and 18. Scientific peer review of our revised proposed
rule supported the science that we used in developing the document. The
commenter did not provide specifics about why the Service might be in
violation of the President's March 9, 2009, Memorandum concerning
Scientific Integrity; however, as illustrated below, we believe our
rulemaking meets the standards set forth in the President's memorandum.
In accordance with section 4 of the Act, we are required to use,
and we used, the best available scientific and commercial information
to make this critical habitat decision. Further, we followed the
criteria, established procedures, and guidance from 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.
In order to meet these ``best available scientific and commercial
information'' standards, we found information from many different
sources, including articles in peer-reviewed journals, scientific
status surveys and studies, other unpublished materials, and experts'
opinions or personal knowledge. Also, in accordance with our peer
review policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we solicited
expert opinions from knowledgeable individuals with scientific
expertise that included familiarity with the species, the geographic
region in which the species occurs, and conservation biology
principles. Additionally, we requested comments or information from
other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific community,
industry, and other interested parties concerning the revised proposed
rule. We accepted comments during two open comment periods for a total
of 105 days. All of the comments and information we received were
considered in finalizing this critical habitat designation for the
dusky gopher frog. All the supporting materials used for the final
rule, including literature cited and comments from the public and peer
reviewers, were made available for public inspection at the Web site:
http://www.regulations.gov.
In conclusion, we believe that we have used the best available
scientific and commercial information for the designation of critical
habitat for the dusky gopher frog, in compliance with the Act and in
accordance with the President's March 9, 2009, Memorandum concerning
Scientific Integrity (see Critical Habitat).
[[Page 35126]]
General Comments Issue 7: Economic Analysis
Comment 21: Two commenters state that the estimated $36.2 million
impact to development activities in proposed Unit 1 should be
attributed to that unit and not viewed as an economic impact of the
entire 7,015-acre proposed critical habitat area.
Our Response: Exhibit ES-2 in the draft economic analysis (DEA)
presents the incremental impacts of gopher frog conservation by unit
and subunit. The impacts presented in this exhibit were revised in the
final economic analysis (FEA) due to the reduction in acreage proposed
in the Federal Register on January 17, 2012 (77 FR 2254). The FEA's
Exhibit ES-2 includes incremental impacts attributable to the areas
within proposed Unit 1 ranging from $0 to $33.9 million (assuming a 7
percent discount rate). This range reflects uncertainty regarding
future land use and gopher frog conservation and recovery
recommendations in Unit 1. These impacts are described further in the
text following this exhibit (paragraphs 12 and 13 in the FEA's
Executive Summary), where the FEA notes that ``under scenarios 2 and 3,
the greatest incremental impacts are forecast to occur within Unit 1
where present value impacts are equal to $20.4 million or $33.9
million, respectively (99.5 and 99.7 percent of overall incremental
impacts), applying a seven percent discount rate.'' Also refer to the
``Economic Analysis'' section of this rule.
Comment 22: Multiple commenters assert that controlled burns
necessary to properly manage habitat for the gopher frog within
proposed Unit 1 will imperil homes and businesses in the vicinity. The
commenters note that such burnings may halt development of adjacent
lands resulting in the loss of revenue to the landowners and tax
revenue to St. Tammany Parish and the State of Louisiana. In addition,
burnings are a safety hazard for drivers along LA Highway 36, which
runs through proposed critical habitat Unit 1.
Our Response: In paragraph 78, the DEA acknowledges landowner
concern that burning may lead to negative impacts in proposed Unit 1.
However, as explained in footnote 76, critical habitat designation does
not allow the Service to require burning of land parcels. If activities
undertaken in Unit 1 have a Federal nexus (as assumed in scenarios 2
and 3 in the DEA), the Service may request burning through the section
7 consultation. Burning would be undertaken by experts following the
issuance of a permit based on environmental conditions. In particular,
wind conditions are considered when issuing a burning permit to ensure
that smoke will not drift onto other properties or across roads. There
is considerable uncertainty surrounding the frequency of future burns
that may be requested by the Service and whether these burns would lead
to any economic impacts; therefore incremental impacts associated with
burns are not quantified in the DEA.
Comment 23: One commenter describes the potential for oil and gas
development in Unit 1 and questions why the DEA does not quantify
economic impacts for oil and gas activities. In particular, the
commenter indicates that consultation on oil and gas development
activities under section 7 of the Act would lead to negative economic
impacts. The commenter concludes that the DEA ignores the negative
economic impact of consultation on oil and gas activities and is
therefore fatally flawed.
Our Response: Paragraph 79 of the DEA summarizes the potential for
economic impacts to oil and gas activities in proposed Unit 1. The DEA
concludes that it is possible that ``in the case oil and gas
development occurs on this land, and a Federal nexus is present
triggering section 7 consultation, that there may be economic impacts
of critical habitat designation for the gopher frog on this activity.''
As summarized on pages ES-4 and ES-5, the DEA assumes that a Federal
nexus is present under scenarios 2 and 3 because of the need for a
Corps Clean Water Act Section 404 permit. The DEA assumes that there is
no Federal nexus triggering section 7 consultation under scenario 1.
Despite the fact that the DEA assumes a Federal nexus is present under
scenarios 2 and 3, and the DEA indicates that economic impacts to oil
and gas activities may be ``possible,'' the DEA does not quantify these
impacts due to considerable uncertainty surrounding the likelihood,
timing, and extent of oil and gas development within Unit 1 over the
foreseeable future. Instead, the DEA qualitatively discusses the
impacts that may occur, such as increased operational costs due to the
need to use directional drilling to access oil and gas resources within
proposed critical habitat areas.
Comment 24: One comment indicates that the DEA underestimates
adverse economic impacts in proposed Unit 1 by failing to quantify
potential impacts to forestry activities. The commenter notes that in
light of recent litigation and Federal agency initiatives, the
likelihood of a Federal nexus for forestry activities is not zero and
therefore costs associated with future consultation on these activities
should be included in the analysis.
Our Response: The DEA includes a section on potential impacts to
forestry activities. Paragraph 95 of the DEA explains that, ``in
general, normal silvicultural activities are exempt from section 404
permitting requirements.'' Although this statement is currently true,
recent litigation and Federal agency initiatives could create a
circumstance in which silviculture operations are no longer exempt from
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) permitting
requirements. A section has been added to the FEA in Chapter 4 to
describe the recent and potential future changes. Nevertheless,
considerable uncertainty surrounds these rulings and whether they will
in fact change the permitting requirements for silvicultural operations
in Mississippi and Louisiana within the next 20 years. It follows that
the likelihood for these activities to be subject to section 7
consultation considering the gopher frog and its habitat is likewise
uncertain. Therefore, the FEA discusses this potential impact
qualitatively.
Comment 25: One comment asserts that the Service fails to seriously
consider the burden that section 7 consultation will place on the
landowners of proposed Unit 1. The commenter expresses concern that the
consultation process itself, as well as the outcome of consultation on
development within proposed Unit 1, will have negative economic
impacts.
Our Response: The DEA estimates a range of possible incremental
economic impacts to development in Unit 1. Two of the possible
scenarios include the administrative cost of section 7 consultation, as
well as a range of impacts associated with the lost value of that land
for development assuming that consultation leads to the Service
recommending that development be avoided within all or part of the
unit. The administrative costs of consultation applied in this analysis
are summarized in Exhibit 2-2 and are based on a review of consultation
records from several Service field offices across the country conducted
in 2002, and the Federal Government Schedule rates. Costs associated
with lost development value of the land within proposed Unit 1 are
described in the DEA's section 4-1. The DEA also includes a scenario
which assumes that development occurring within Unit 1 avoids impacts
on jurisdictional wetlands, and therefore the landowners will not be
required to consult with the Service regarding gopher frog critical
habitat. This low-
[[Page 35127]]
end impact estimate is included due to uncertainty regarding the
likelihood of a Federal nexus for development activities in Unit 1 and
the conservation measures that the Service may recommended if
consultation does occur.
Comment 26: Multiple commenters assert that designation would lead
to lost tax revenues for the local government and State.
Our Response: The designation of critical habitat is not expected
to have an effect on broader regional real estate demand and supply in
St. Tammany Parish due to the existence of substitute sites for
development activities. As a result, impacts to the regional
construction industry and loss in revenue associated with home and
business sales are not anticipated to occur. In addition, a reduction
in housing supply is unlikely due to the existence of substitute sites,
and, in turn, a measurable loss of tax revenue is not expected. A
discussion of the potential effect on the regional real estate market
has been added to the FEA.
Comment 27: One commenter states that the DEA fails to consider the
incremental impacts to future activities in Unit 1 that would be borne
by future landowners residing within the unit after it has been
developed for residential and commercial uses.
Our Response: As described in section 4.1 of the DEA, under
scenario 1, no Federal nexus compelling section 7 consultation would
occur and therefore no additional economic burdens would be expected
for those families and businesses that purchase developed lands. Under
scenario 3, no development would occur and thus impacts would be
expected to be limited to the existing landowners. Therefore, scenario
2 is the only scenario in which both development and a Federal nexus
would be expected to occur. Under this scenario, there is the potential
that additional economic impacts could be incurred by landowners who
purchase this developed property; however, this would occur only if the
landowners undertake activities that result in a Federal nexus. The
extent of these impacts would depend on the type and timing of future
projects. In general, consultation with the Service at sites that have
already been developed are rare. Given the inherent uncertainty,
impacts to future landowners cannot be quantified in scenario 2.
Comment 28: One commenter asserts that the Service unjustly ignores
the negative economic impacts in Unit 1 on the landowners and St.
Tammany Parish by deeming the impacts ``insignificant.''
Our Response: In the revised proposed rule published in the Federal
Register on September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59774), the Service states that,
``if promulgated, the proposed designation would not directly have a
significant effect on a substantial number of small business
entities.'' This certification is based on the screening level analysis
of the potential for gopher frog critical habitat designation to affect
small entities contained in Appendix A of the DEA. The results of this
screening analysis were revised in the FEA due to the reduction in
acreage proposed in the Federal Register on January 17, 2012 (77 FR
2254). The screening analysis in the FEA finds that five small entities
will be affected by the designation of critical habitat for the gopher
frog, accounting for 3.9 percent of the total small Land Subdividers
within the counties containing critical habitat. In addition, this
screening analysis finds that the annualized impact of the proposed
designation of critical habitat within Unit 1 represents from zero to
44.7 percent of the average annual revenue for the four small entities
affected in Unit 1. Based on these findings in the screening analysis
and the tests set forth under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA), we certified that, ``if promulgated, the
proposed designation would not directly have a significant effect on a
substantial number of small business entities.''
Comment 29: One commenter states that the benefits of designating
proposed Unit 1 as critical habitat are vague and highly speculative
and not quantified in the DEA on page 5-2.
Our Response: As stated in paragraph 53 of the DEA, the ``primary
purpose of the rulemaking (i.e., the direct benefit) is the potential
to enhance conservation of the species.'' OMB acknowledges in its
guidance for implementing Executive Order 12866 that it may not be
feasible to monetize or quantify the benefits of environmental
regulations due to either an absence of studies or a lack of resources
on the implementing agency's part to conduct new research. Instead of
relying on economic measures, the Service believes that the benefits of
the proposed rule are best expressed in biological terms that can then
be weighed against the expected costs of the rulemaking.
Comment 30: One commenter asks whether having a Federal home loan
or insurance would constitute a Federal nexus.
Our Response: No. Federal home loans are not made directly to
individuals by the Federal government. Transactions are made with
member banks and decisions about lending are then made by member banks;
therefore there is no Federal action agency with regard to critical
habitat. With regard to Federal flood insurance, if the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) were to undertake an action or fund
an action that could impact critical habitat, it would need to consult
with the Service on that action. However, when FEMA simply makes
decisions regarding who receives Federal flood insurance, there is no
action that would trigger consultation under the Act.
Comment 31: Multiple commenters assert that the DEA fails to
analyze all impacts of critical habitat designation, regardless of
whether those impacts are co-extensive with those of the listing. These
commenters cite the ruling in New Mexico Cattle Growers Association v.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 248 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2001), in
which the Court ruled that economic analyses must consider the co-
extensive impacts of critical habitat designation.
Our Response: The identification and estimation of incremental
impacts is consistent with direction provided by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies for the estimation of
the costs and benefits of Federal regulations (see OMB, Circular A-4,
2003). It is also consistent with several recent court decisions,
including Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. U.S. Department
of the Interior, 344 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.D.C.) and Center for Biological
Diversity v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 422 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (N.D.
Cal. 2006). Those decisions found that estimation of incremental
impacts, i.e., those stemming solely from the designation, is proper.
Comment 32: One commenter states that the proposed designation of
critical habitat in southern Forrest County, Units 8 and 9, will
prevent future development and timber management in the area. The
commenter believes that the economic costs to Forrest County and its
citizens outweigh the benefits of designation.
Our Response: As presented in Exhibit 1-1 of the DEA, all but 5
acres of the land proposed for designation within Units 8 and 9 are
federally managed. As described in section 3-1 of the DEA, the portions
of proposed Units 8 and 9 that fall within the DNF are actively managed
by the USFS for the benefit of the gopher frog. Costs associated with
the designation of critical habitat within these areas are limited to
the administrative cost of a programmatic consultation with USFS on
their gopher frog management activities. Because the USFS has worked
[[Page 35128]]
closely with the Service to develop their current management practices
on these lands, no additional project modifications are expected to
result from the consultation. Therefore, the DEA does not anticipate
that future development or timber management will be affected by the
designation of critical habitat. Therefore, the DEA does not estimate
any costs to Forrest County or private landowners within Units 8 and 9.
Comment 33: Multiple comments state that all privately owned lands,
with the exception of those owned by supporters of the designation,
should be excluded from the designation of critical habitat. These
commenters assert that the proposed designation will negatively affect
property values, the livelihood of landowners, and thus the local
economy.
Our Response: All known reasonably foreseeable economic impacts on
privately owned lands are quantified in the DEA. In particular, section
4.1 of the DEA quantifies potential impacts to land value within Unit
1. In addition to these direct impacts to land value, paragraph 51 of
the DEA describes the potential indirect stigma effect that the
designation of critical habitat may have on property values. Measurable
stigma effects are unlikely, and thus they are quantified in the DEA.
Summary of Changes From Revised Proposed Rule
In preparing this final rule, we reviewed and fully considered
comments from the public and peer reviewers that we received in
response to our revised proposed rule designating critical habitat for
the dusky gopher frog published in the Federal Register on September
27, 2011 (76 FR 59774). Based on information we received from peer
reviewers, we amended the methodology we used in constructing critical
habitat units. This change is described in detail in our January 17,
2012 publication announcing a public hearing in the Federal Register
(77 FR 2254). Proposed changes included: combining all movement data
from different studies conducted at the same site; discarding one field
observation from the movement data because it did not provide specific
information on breeding pond or upland habitat use; and standardizing
all movement data to reflect straight-line distances between breeding
ponds and uplands. As a result of these changes, proposed critical
habitat for the dusky gopher frog was reduced by 193 ha (477 ac).
During a review of aerial photography prior to making the final
maps of critical habitat for this final rule, we identified an
agricultural field within critical habitat Unit 10 as it was described
in the revised proposed rule. Because this agricultural area does not
contain habitat suitable for the dusky gopher frog, it has been removed
from the critical habitat designation. This change resulted in a
further reduction of critical habitat of 35 ha (87 ac).
As a result of these two changes, there is a total reduction of 228
ha (564 ac) from the critical habitat we proposed on September 27,
2011, (76 FR 59774). In this rule we are designating approximately
2,621 ha (6,477 ac) of critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog.
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.
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 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)
of the Act 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.
[[Page 35129]]
Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on
the basis of the best scientific and commercial 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 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 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.
Physical or 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 or biological
features 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 or biological features required for
the dusky gopher frog from studies of this species' habitat, ecology,
and life history as described in the Critical Habitat section of the
revised proposed rule to designate critical habitat published in the
Federal Register on September 27, 2011 (76 FR 59774), and in the
information presented below. Additional information can be found in the
final listing rule published in the Federal Register on December 4,
2001 (66 FR 62993). We have determined that the dusky gopher frog
requires the following physical or biological features.
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
Dusky 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, pine
woodlands historically dominated by longleaf pine (naturally occurring
slash pine (Pinus elliottii) 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 dusky gopher frogs and other
species of gopher frogs (Roznik and Johnson 2009a, p. 265).
During the breeding season, dusky 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 in the uplands. Both forested uplands and
isolated wetlands (see ``Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing
(or Development) of Offspring'' for further discussion of isolated
wetlands) are needed to provide space for individual and population
growth and for normal behavior.
After breeding, adult dusky gopher frogs leave pond sites during
major rainfall events; metamorphic frogs follow, after their
development is complete. Limited data are available on the distance
between the wetland breeding and upland terrestrial habitats of post-
larval and adult dusky 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 dusky 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 dusky
gopher frogs captured at Glen's Pond. The maximum distance traveled by
these frogs to underground refuges was 240 m (787 ft).
Studies of a closely related gopher frog (Rana capito) in Florida,
Georgia, and North Carolina, have documented surprisingly long
movements between their breeding ponds and upland refugia. 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
[[Page 35130]]
sites (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 generated data on
radio-tracked frogs, or provided observations of them, in upland
habitat at varying distances from their breeding ponds. We assessed
these studies, and when multiple studies were conducted on a single
population, we combined data for each site (we also combined the two
data sets for dusky gopher frog). In the additional gopher frog
studies, the maximum straight-line distances from pond to upland
refugia are: 300 m (984 ft) (Georgia; Rostal 1999, p. 1); 525 m (1,722
ft) (Georgia; Neufeldt and Birkhead 2001, p. 10); 571 m (1,873 ft)
(Florida; Blihovde 2006, p. 267); and 862 m (2,828 ft) (Florida; Roznik
2007, p. 10).
It is difficult to interpret specific habitat use for the dusky
gopher frog from the limited available data. Movements are generally
between breeding sites and belowground refugia, and distances moved are
likely to be tied to the abundance and distribution of appropriate
refugia. We have assumed that the dusky gopher frog can move farther
distances, and may use a larger area, than the existing data for the
species indicate. For this reason, we used data from the dusky gopher
frog and other species of gopher frogs to estimate the potential
distance a dusky gopher frog may move between its breeding pond and
upland refugia. These seven values included the longest movement
recorded for the dusky gopher frog, 299 m (981 ft), and the six values
for other species of gopher frogs as described in the paragraph above.
We then took the median value of all the dusky gopher frog and gopher
frog movement data available to us (571 m (1,873 ft)), and used this
value to construct the area of critical habitat around each occupied or
unoccupied dusky gopher frog breeding pond. See also Summary of Changes
from Revised Proposed Rule, above.
Due to the low number of occupied sites for the species, and with
the cooperation of our Federal, State, and nongovernmental agency
partners, management has been conducted at specific sites to improve
habitat for dusky gopher frogs with the hope of establishing new
populations at the sites (see ``Criteria Used To Identify Critical
Habitat''). When possible, we are managing wetlands in these areas
within 1,000 m (3,281 ft) of each other 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 dusky gopher frogs has been reduced to three
sites (Glen's Pond, Mike's Pond, and McCoy's Pond). In addition,
optimal terrestrial habitat for gopher frogs is considered to be within
burrows of the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus), a rare and
declining species that is listed as threatened under the Act within the
range of the dusky gopher frog. Therefore, this specialized
microhabitat has been reduced as well. Fragmentation and loss of the
dusky gopher 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 dusky gopher frog breeding and nonbreeding habitat
within the geographic area occupied by the species must be maintained
to support the species' survival. Additionally, connectivity of these
sites with other areas outside the geographic area occupied currently
by the dusky gopher frog is essential for the conservation of the
species. Research on other species of pond-breeding amphibians
demonstrates the importance of connectivity of breeding and nonbreeding
habitat, as well as occupied and unoccupied sites (Semlitsch 2002, p.
624; Harper et al. 2008, p. 1205). Connectivity 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).
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or
Physiological Requirements
Dusky 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 Ligyrus sp.) beetles (Netting
and Goin 1942, p. 259) and Ceuthophilus crickets (Milstrey 1984, p.
10). Dusky 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 other 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 dusky 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 dusky gopher frog tadpoles.
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). Because dusky 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, dusky 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 dusky 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
[[Page 35131]]
important for juveniles in their first year. Survival of juvenile
gopher frogs in north-central Florida was found to be dependent on
their use of underground refugia (Roznik and Johnson 2009b, p. 431).
Gopher frogs that did not occupy an underground refuge experienced much
higher levels of mortality when compared with those that did occupy
underground refuges (Roznik and Johnson 2009b, p. 434).
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing (or Development) of
Offspring
Dusky 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
in DNF, 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 dusky 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 (3.8 ac) 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, contains emergent and submergent vegetation, and has an
open canopy cover. It is especially important that a breeding pond have
an open canopy; although 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 dusky gopher frog tadpoles.
Canopy closure reduced the number of tadpoles that survived to
metamorphosis and reduced the growth rates of those that did survive so
that they were smaller at metamorphosis (Thurgate and Pechmann 2007,
pp. 1845). The general habitat attributes of the other three dusky
gopher frog breeding ponds are similar to those of Glen's Pond. Female
dusky 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 (east of the Mobile River drainage) and
Florida have similar structure and function to those of the dusky
gopher frog (Bailey 1990, p. 29; Palis 1998, p. 217; Greenberg 2001, p.
74).
An unpolluted wetland with water free of predaceous fish, suspended
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. For further
information see our December 4, 2001, listing rule (66 FR 62993).
Primary Constituent Elements for the Dusky Gopher Frog
Under the Act and its implementing regulations, we are required to
identify the physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the dusky 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 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.
Based on our current knowledge of the physical or biological
features (discussed above) and habitat characteristics required to
sustain the species' life-history processes, we determine that the
primary constituent elements specific to the dusky 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 dusky 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.
(2) Primary Constituent Element 2--Upland forested nonbreeding
habitat. Forests historically dominated by longleaf pine, adjacent to
and accessible to and from breeding ponds, that are 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 dusky gopher frog depends
upon for food, shelter, and protection from the elements and predation.
(3) Primary Constituent Element 3--Upland connectivity habitat.
Accessible upland habitat between breeding and nonbreeding habitats to
allow for dusky gopher frog movements between and among such sites.
This habitat is characterized by an open canopy, abundant native
herbaceous species, and a subsurface structure that provides shelter
for dusky gopher frogs during seasonal movements, such as that created
by deep litter cover, clumps of grass, or burrows.
With this designation of critical habitat, we intend to identify
the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of
the species through the identification of the elements of the features,
the primary constituent elements, that support the life-history
processes of the species. The Service has determined that Unit 2a
contained all of the PCEs, Units 2b through 12 are essential to the
conservation of the species and also contain all of the PCEs, and Unit
1 is essential to the conservation of the species and contains one of
the PCEs.
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 occupied at the time of listing will require some level
of management to address the current and future threats to the dusky
gopher frog and to maintain or restore the PCEs. Unoccupied areas will
also require management to complete restoration. The features essential
to the conservation of this species may require special management
considerations or protection to reduce various threats to critical
habitat that may affect one or more of the PCEs. Special management of
ephemeral wetland habitats ((breeding sites (PCE 1)) will be needed to
ensure that these areas provide water
[[Page 35132]]
quantity, quality, and appropriate hydroperiod; cover; and absence from
levels of predation and disease that can affect population persistence.
In nonbreeding upland forested habitat (PCEs 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
dusky gopher frog and its habitat can be found in the final listing
rule (66 FR 62993; December 4, 2001). Activities that may warrant
special management of the physical or biological features that define
essential habitat (appropriate quantity and distribution of PCEs) for
the dusky gopher frog include, but are not limited to: (1) Land use
conversions, primarily urban development and conversion to agriculture
and pine plantations; (2) stump removal and other soil-disturbing
activities that destroy the belowground structure within forest soils;
(3) fire suppression and low fire frequencies; (4) wetland destruction
and degradation; (5) random effects of drought or floods; (6) off-road
vehicle use; (7) maintenance of gas, water, electrical power, and sewer
easements; and (8) activities that disturb underground refugia used by
dusky gopher frogs for foraging, protection from predators, and shelter
from the elements.
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): (1) Maintaining critical habitat areas as forested
pine habitat (preferably longleaf pine); (2) 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; (3)
maintaining forest underground structure such as gopher tortoise
burrows, small mammal burrows, and stump holes; (4) 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 reviewed 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 designating critical habitat in
areas within the geographic area occupied by the species at the time of
listing in 2001. We also are designating 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 designated as
critical habitat are part of ongoing recovery initiatives for this
species. We have determined that all areas designated as critical
habitat outside the area occupied by the species at the time of listing
are essential for the conservation of the species.
Dusky gopher frogs require small, isolated, ephemeral, acidic,
depressional standing bodies of freshwater for breeding; upland pine
forested habitat that has an open canopy maintained by fire
(preferably) for nonbreeding habitat; and upland connectivity habitat
areas that allow for movement between nonbreeding and breeding sites.
Dusky gopher frog populations are likely to function as metapopulations
when occupied habitat is improved and that option is available to them
since other species of gopher frogs behave in this way. In certain
years and under certain conditions, dusky gopher frogs may move from
ponds that become unsuitable to others that are suitable. Or in some
years, if ponds fail to fill with water, local extirpations may occur
and dusky gopher frogs from adjacent ponds may recolonize those sites
when they fill with water again. The range of the dusky 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 dusky 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; (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 dusky gopher frog with an assessment of the critical
life-history components of the dusky gopher frog, as they relate to
habitat. We then evaluated the dusky gopher frog in the context of its
historic (Alabama (west of the Mobile River drainage), 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 historic and current
distributions, life histories, and habitat requirements of this
species. We focused on the identification of ephemeral wetland habitats
in our analysis because they are requisite sites for population
survival and conservation and their rarity in the environment is one of
the primary reasons that the frog is endangered. Our sources included
surveys, unpublished reports, and peer-reviewed scientific literature
prepared by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, Alabama Natural Heritage Program, Louisiana Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries, Natural Heritage Program, Mississippi
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, and dusky gopher frog
researchers and other herpetologists that specialize in frogs; Service
data and publications such as the final listing rule for the dusky
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 dusky gopher frog (as currently described) record
from Alabama was an observation by L[ouml]ding in 1922, and summarized
in Wright and Wright (1949, p. 539). L[ouml]ding found three gopher
frogs under drift logs on the beach of Mobile Bay just south of the
mouth of Dog River, Mobile County,
[[Page 35133]]
Alabama. Bailey (1994, pp. 4-5) visited this area in 1993, and found it
to be a residential development, although large longleaf pine trees in
lawns and vacant lots indicated the area could have formerly been
suitable upland habitat for gopher frogs. Neither L[ouml]ding nor
Bailey located a possible breeding site in the vicinity of the record.
Researchers have conducted two studies in southwestern Alabama to look
for habitat that could support dusky gopher frogs. Hart (2004, pp. 1-9)
initiated a remote sensing study using aerial photography of Mobile and
Washington Counties, Alabama, to find open, isolated ponds in proximity
to forested terrain. This technique was used to identify sites with the
potential for supporting dusky gopher frog populations. Hart (2004, pp.
1-9) conducted field assessments of 41 ponds in Mobile County, Alabama,
but habitat quality at these ponds was limited. Ponds were overgrown
with woody vegetation and lacked the emergent vegetation necessary for
dusky gopher frog egg attachment (Hart 2004, p. 9). Additional ponds
were identified remotely in Washington County, Alabama, but were not
visited, and their habitat quality is unknown. Bailey (2009, pp. 1-14)
used a similar remote sensing technique to locate a total of 21 ponds
in Choctaw, Mobile, and Washington Counties, Alabama. However, this was
a coarse filter approach, and field assessments were not possible due
to drought conditions and inaccessibility resulting from site
isolation. No areas suitable for conservation of the dusky gopher frog
were identified in either of the remote sensing studies. No dusky
gopher frog populations in Alabama were discovered during field
assessments associated with Hart's (2004, pp. 1-9) study. At this time,
the Service has not been able to identify suitable areas in Alabama
that are essential for the conservation of the dusky gopher frog; thus,
none are being designated as critical habitat.
In Louisiana, the dusky gopher frog was last observed in 1965. The
Service visited the area of historic dusky gopher frog occurrence in
St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, and conducted a habitat assessment in
March 2011. The area is managed for timber by a company conducting
industrial forestry. Although the surrounding uplands are poor-quality
terrestrial habitat for dusky gopher frogs, we visited at least five
ephemeral ponds, including the last known record of the species in
Louisiana. These ponds were intact and of remarkable quality. This same
area was surveyed for gopher frogs in the 1990s and 2000s. During those
visits, the ephemeral ponds were considered similar in appearance
(water clarity, depth, vegetation) to ponds in Mississippi used for
breeding by the dusky gopher frog (Thomas and Ballew 1997, p. 6;
Leonard et al. 2003, pp. 7-8; Pechmann et al. 2006, pp. 8, 10). Our
observations in 2011 indicated the Louisiana ponds were little changed
from the descriptions provided by the previous surveyors. In addition,
the ponds are in close proximity to each other, which would allow
movement of adult gopher frogs between them. In fact, no group of five
ponds such as these was found in any of the areas of historical
occurrence that we have searched in Mississippi. Dusky gopher frogs
exhibit high larval and juvenile mortality. Multiple breeding sites
protect against catastrophic loss at any one site and provide
opportunity for recolonization. This is an especially important aspect
of critical habitat for dusky gopher frogs due to their limited
population numbers. The multiple ponds present at the St. Tammany
Parish site provide metapopulation structure that supports long-term
survival and population resiliency. As a result, the Service determined
that this area of St. Tammany Parish (Unit 1) is essential for the
conservation of the dusky gopher frog.
In Mississippi, we identified ephemeral wetland habitat throughout
the coastal counties within the historic distribution of the dusky
gopher frog using U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, National
Wetland Inventory maps, Natural Resource Conservation Service county
soil survey maps, and satellite imagery. Because we had previously
identified existing sites with habitat essential for the conservation
of the dusky gopher frog in our 2010 proposed rule (75 FR 31387), we
searched for additional habitat with the best potential of restoring
the physical and biological features essential for the conservation of
the dusky gopher frog. We found these areas were concentrated on the
DNF 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. Once these areas were
identified, we coordinated with our partners in the U.S. Forest
Service, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Mississippi Department
of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks, and The Nature Conservancy as they
worked on habitat restoration efforts at the sites. The habitat quality
of isolated ephemeral wetlands and the upland pine forests surrounding
them were improved to benefit the recovery of the dusky gopher frog.
The habitat restoration efforts have been successful in establishing or
improving the quality of the three PCEs required to sustain the dusky
gopher frog's life-history processes on each of these sites. Therefore,
the Service has determined that these unoccupied sites are essential
for the conservation of the species.
Only one subunit (Unit 2, subunit A) is known to have been occupied
at the time of listing. We believe this occupied area contains
sufficient PCEs to support life-history functions essential to the
conservation of the species; however, this lone area is not sufficient
to conserve the species. Therefore, sites not known to be occupied at
the time of listing have also been designated as critical habitat.
Three units/subunits (Unit 4, subunit A; Unit 5, subunit A; and Unit 7)
are currently occupied by the dusky gopher frog, but were discovered or
established subsequent to the listing of the species. Eleven units/
subunits, not known to be occupied at the time of listing but within
the historic range of the species, are also currently unoccupied. The
inclusion of these eleven areas will provide habitat for population
translocation and support recovery efforts for the dusky gopher frog.
One of the unoccupied units (Unit 1) represents an historic record for
the dusky gopher frog. The historic occupancy status of the other 10
units/subunits is unknown. All 14 units/subunits not known to be
occupied at the time of listing have been designated as critical
habitat because the Service has determined they are essential for the
conservation of the species. The dusky 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 designating as critical habitat are essential 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
[[Page 35134]]
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
(a) The specific location of the breeding site occupied by the
dusky gopher frog at the time of listing, and
(b) Those locations of breeding sites outside the geographic area
occupied by the species at the time it was listed, that are currently
occupied and not occupied, that were determined to be essential for the
conservation of the species;
(2) We delineated critical habitat units by buffering the above
locations by a radius of 621 m (2,037 ft). We believe the area created
will protect the majority of a dusky gopher frog population's breeding
and upland habitat and incorporate all primary constituent elements
within the critical habitat unit. We chose the value of 621 m (2,037
ft) by using the median farthest distance movement (571 m (1,873 ft))
from data collected during multiple studies of the gopher frog group
(see ``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 ``Space
for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior'').
When determining critical habitat boundaries within this final
rule, we made every effort to avoid including developed areas, such as
lands covered by buildings, pavement, and other structures, because
such lands lack physical or biological features for the dusky 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 final rule
have been excluded by text in the rule and are not designated as
critical habitat. Therefore, a Federal action involving these lands
will 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 or biological features in the
adjacent critical habitat.
We are designating as critical habitat twelve units, three of which
are divided into two subunits each, based on sufficient elements of
physical or biological features present to support dusky gopher frog
life processes. Some units/subunits contain all of the identified
elements of physical or biological features and support multiple life
processes. Other units contain only some elements of the physical or
biological features necessary to support the dusky gopher frog's
particular use of that habitat.
Final Critical Habitat Designation
We are designating 15 units/subunits as critical habitat for the
dusky gopher frog. The critical habitat areas described below
constitute our current best assessment at this time of areas that meet
the definition of critical habitat. Table 1 below shows the specific
occupancy status of each unit/subunit at the time of listing and
currently, based on the most recent data available.
Table 1--Occupancy of Dusky Gopher Frog by Designated Critical Habitat Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not occupied at Not occupied at
Occupied at the the time of the time of
Unit Parish/county time of listing, listing, currently listing, currently
currently occupied occupied unoccupied
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISIANA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... St. Tammany....... .................. .................. X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISSISSIPPI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2, Subunit A.................... Harrison.......... X .................. ..................
2, Subunit B.................... Harrison.......... .................. .................. X
3............................... Harrison.......... .................. .................. 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
critical habitat unit. Hectare and acre values were individually
computer-generated using GIS software, rounded to nearest whole number,
and then summed.
[[Page 35135]]
Table 2--Designated Critical Habitat Units for Dusky Gopher Frog by Land Ownership
[Area estimates (hectares (ha) and acres (ac)) reflect all land within critical habitat unit boundaries]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership
Unit Parish/county ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total area
Federal State Private
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOUISIANA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................................. St. Tammany.......... ................................ ................................ 625 ha.......................... 625 ha
(1,544 ac)...................... (1,544 ac)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MISSISSIPPI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2, Subunit A...................... Harrison............. 100 ha.......................... ................................ 21 ha........................... 121 ha
(247 ac)........................ (52 ac)......................... (299 ac)
2, Subunit B...................... Harrison............. 425 ha.......................... ................................ 3 ha............................ 428 ha
(1,050 ac)...................... (7 ac).......................... (1,057 ac)
3................................. Harrison............. 121 ha.......................... ................................ ................................ 121 ha
(299 ac)........................ (299 ac)
4, Subunit A...................... Jackson.............. ................................ ................................ 121 ha.......................... 121 ha
(299 ac)........................ (299 ac)
4, Subunit B...................... Jackson.............. 48 ha........................... ................................ 109 ha.......................... 157 ha
(119 ac)........................ (269 ac)........................ (388 ac)
5, Subunit A...................... Jackson.............. ................................ ................................ 121 ha.......................... 121 ha
(299 ac)........................ (299 ac)
5, Subunit B...................... Jackson.............. ................................ ................................ 54 ha........................... 54 ha
(133 ac)........................ (133 ac)
6................................. Jackson.............. 121 ha.......................... ................................ ................................ 121 ha
(299 ac)........................ (299 ac)
7................................. Jackson.............. ................................ 107 ha.......................... 14 ha........................... 121 ha
(264 ac)........................ (35 ac)......................... (299 ac)
8................................. Forrest.............. 121 ha.......................... ................................ ................................ 121 ha
(299 ac)........................ (299 ac)
9................................. Forrest.............. 120 ha.......................... ................................ 1 ha............................ 121 ha
(297 ac)........................ (2.5 ac)........................ (299 ac)
10................................ Perry................ 127 ha.......................... ................................ 20 ha........................... 147 ha
(314 ac)........................ (49 ac)......................... (363 ac)
11................................ Perry................ 119 ha.......................... ................................ 2 ha............................ 121 ha
(294 ac)........................ (5 ac).......................... (299 ac)
12................................ Perry................ 115 ha.......................... ................................ 6 ha............................ 121 ha
(284 ac)........................ (15 ac)......................... (299 ac)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... All Parishes and 1,417 ha........................ 107 ha.......................... 1,097 ha........................ 2,621 ha
Counties. (3,501 ac)...................... (264 ac)........................ (2,711 ac)...................... (6,477 ac)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Area sizes may not sum due to rounding.
We present below brief descriptions of all units and reasons why
they meet the definition of critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog.
Unit 1: St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana
Unit 1 encompasses 625 ha (1,544 ac) on private lands managed for
industrial forestry 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, the last observation of a
dusky gopher frog in Louisiana was in 1965 in one of the ponds within
this unit.
Unit 1 consists of five ponds (ephemeral wetland habitat) and their
associated uplands. If dusky gopher frogs are translocated to the site,
the five ponds are in close enough proximity to each other that adult
frogs could move between them and create a metapopulation, which
increases the chances of the long-term survival of the population.
Although the uplands associated with the ponds do not currently contain
the essential physical or biological features of critical habitat, we
believe them to be restorable with reasonable effort. Due to the low
number of remaining populations and severely restricted range of the
dusky gopher frog, the species is at high risk of extirpation from
stochastic events, such as disease or drought. Maintaining the five
ponds within this area as suitable habitat into which dusky 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. Therefore, we have determined this
unit is essential for the conservation of the species because it
provides important breeding sites for recovery. It includes habitat for
population expansion outside of the core population areas in
Mississippi, a necessary component of recovery efforts for the dusky
gopher frog.
Unit 2: Harrison County, Mississippi
Unit 2 comprises two subunits encompassing 549 ha (1,356 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 525 ha (1,297 ac) are in the
DNF and 24 ha (59 ac) are in private ownership.
[[Page 35136]]
Subunit A
Unit 2, Subunit A encompasses 121 ha (299 ac) around the only
breeding pond (Glen's Pond) known for the dusky 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 or biological features
of the species. The majority of this subunit (100 ha (247 ac)) is in
the DNF, with the remainder (21 ha (52 ac)) in private ownership. This
subunit is being designated as critical habitat because it was occupied
at the time of listing, is currently occupied, and contains sufficient
primary constituent elements (ephemeral wetland habitat (PCE 1), upland
forested nonbreeding habitat (PCE 2), and upland connectivity habitat
(PCE 3)) 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
dusky gopher frogs that currently exist in the wild. Within Unit 2,
Subunit A, the dusky 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 428 ha (1,057 ac) adjacent to Subunit
A and the area surrounding Glen's Pond. The majority of this subunit
(425 ha (1,050 ac)) is in the DNF, with the remainder (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 dusky gopher frog because it consists of areas,
within the dispersal range of the dusky gopher frog (from Subunit A),
which we believe provide important breeding sites for recovery and
metapopulation structure that will protect the dusky gopher frog from
extinction. This unoccupied area consists of three ponds and their
associated uplands in the DNF. These ponds were named Reserve Pond,
Pony Ranch Pond, and New Pond during our ongoing recovery initiatives.
The USFS is actively managing this area to benefit the recovery of the
dusky gopher frog. Due to the low number of remaining populations and
the severely restricted range of the dusky 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 dusky
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.
Unit 3: Harrison County, Mississippi
Unit 3 encompasses 121 ha (299 ac) on Federal land in Harrison
County, Mississippi. This unit is located in the DNF 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 DNF that was given the name of Carr Bridge Road Pond
during ongoing recovery initiatives when it was selected as a dusky
gopher frog translocation site. The USFS is actively managing this area
to benefit the recovery of the dusky gopher frog. Due to the low number
of remaining populations and severely restricted range of the dusky
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 dusky 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. Therefore, this unit is being designated as critical
habitat because it is essential for the conservation of the species.
Unit 4: Jackson County, Mississippi
Unit 4 encompasses 278 ha (687 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 48 ha (119 ac) are in the Mississippi
Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge and 230 ha (568 ac) are in
private ownership.
Subunit A
Unit 4, Subunit A encompasses 121 ha (299 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 dusky 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 dusky 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
dusky gopher frog. Due to the low number of remaining populations and
severely restricted range of the dusky 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 dusky
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.
Subunit B
Unit 4, Subunit B encompasses 157 ha (388 ac) on Federal and
private land adjacent to Subunit A. The majority of this subunit (109
ha (269 ac)) is on private land, with the remainder of the unit (48 ha
(119 ac)) in 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 dusky gopher frog
because it consists of an area, within the dispersal range of the dusky
gopher frog (from Subunit A), which provides two important breeding
sites and their associated upland for recovery and metapopulation
structure that will protect the dusky gopher frog from extinction. This
area is actively managed to benefit the recovery of the dusky gopher
frog. Due to the low number of remaining populations and severely
restricted range of the dusky 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
[[Page 35137]]
extinction of the species and provide for the species' eventual
recovery.
Unit 5: Jackson County, Mississippi
Unit 5 encompasses 175 ha (432 ac) 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 121 ha (299 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 dusky gopher frogs
were discovered in 2004, subsequent to the listing of the dusky gopher
frog.
We believe this subunit is essential for the conservation of the
dusky gopher frog because of the presence of a proven breeding pond,
named 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 dusky gopher frog from extinction, is possible when
the whole area of Unit 5 is considered. The owners of this property are
actively managing this area to benefit the recovery of the dusky gopher
frog. Due to the low number of remaining populations and severely
restricted range of the dusky 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.
Subunit B
Unit 5, Subunit B encompasses 54 ha (133 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 dusky gopher frog because it consists of an area,
within the dispersal range of the dusky gopher frog (from Subunit A),
which provides an important breeding site and associated forested
uplands for recovery and metapopulation structure that will protect the
dusky 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 dusky gopher frog. Due to the low number
of remaining populations and severely restricted range of the dusky
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.
Unit 6: Jackson County, Mississippi
Unit 6 encompasses 121 ha (299 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 U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and managed by the Mississippi
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP) to benefit the
recovery of the dusky gopher frog.
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 dusky gopher frog
because it provides an important breeding site and associated forested
uplands for recovery. Due to the low number of remaining populations
and severely restricted range of the dusky 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 dusky
gopher frogs could be translocated, is essential to decrease the
potential risk of extinction of the species and provide for the
species' eventual recovery.
Unit 7: Jackson County, Mississippi
Unit 7 encompasses 121 ha (299 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 (107 ha (264 ac)) is 16th section land held in trust by the
State of Mississippi as a local funding source for public education in
Jackson County. The Jackson County School board has jurisdiction and
control of the land. The balance of this unit is on private land (14 ha
(35 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 dusky gopher frog, contains a breeding pond named
McCoy's Pond and associated uplands. We believe this area is essential
for the conservation of the species because it provides an important
breeding site and associated forested uplands for recovery of the dusky
gopher frog. Currently, the State-owned portion of the area is managed
for timber production by the Mississippi Forestry Commission for the
Jackson County School Board. Due to the low number of remaining
populations and severely restricted range of the dusky 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 dusky gopher frogs is essential to decrease the risk of extinction
of the species and provide for the species' eventual recovery.
Unit 8: Forrest County, Mississippi
Unit 8 encompasses 121 ha (299 ac) on Federal land in Forrest
County, Mississippi. This unit is located in the DNF 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
dusky gopher frog translocation site during ongoing recovery
initiatives. We believe this area is essential for the conservation of
the species because it provides an important breeding site and
associated forested uplands for recovery of the dusky gopher frog.
Unit 8 is being actively managed by the USFS to benefit the
recovery of the dusky gopher frog. Due to the low number of remaining
populations and severely restricted range of the dusky 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 dusky gopher frogs could be translocated, is essential to
decrease the potential risk of extinction of the species and provide
for the species' eventual recovery.
Unit 9: Forrest County, Mississippi
Unit 9 encompasses 121 ha (299 ac) on Federal land and private land
in Forrest County, Mississippi. The majority of this unit (120 ha (297
ac)) is located in the DNF and the balance (1
[[Page 35138]]
ha (2.5 ac)) 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
dusky gopher frog translocation site during ongoing recovery
initiatives. We believe this area is essential for the conservation of
the species because it provides an important breeding site and
associated forested uplands for recovery of the dusky gopher frog.
Most of Unit 9 is being actively managed by the USFS to benefit the
recovery of the dusky gopher frog. Due to the low number of remaining
populations and severely restricted range of the dusky 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 dusky gopher frogs could be translocated, is essential to
decrease the potential risk of extinction of the species and provide
for the species' eventual recovery.
Unit 10: Perry County, Mississippi
Unit 10 encompasses 147 ha (363 ac) on Federal land and private
land in Perry County, Mississippi. The majority of this unit (127 ha
(314 ac)) is located in the DNF and the balance (20 ha (49 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 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 dusky gopher frog translocation sites during ongoing recovery
initiatives. It provides the habitat for establishing new breeding
ponds and metapopulation structure that will protect the dusky gopher
frog from extinction. We believe this area is essential for the
conservation of the dusky gopher frog because it provides two important
breeding sites and their associated forested uplands for recovery of
the dusky gopher frog.
Most of Unit 10 is being actively managed by the USFS to benefit
the recovery of the dusky gopher frog. Due to the low number of
remaining populations and severely restricted range of the dusky 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 dusky gopher frogs could be translocated, is
essential to decrease the risk of extinction of the species and provide
for the species' eventual recovery.
Unit 11: Perry County, Mississippi
Unit 11 encompasses 121 ha (299 ac) on Federal land and private
land in Perry County, Mississippi. The majority of this unit (119 ha
(294 ac)) is located in the DNF and the balance (2 ha (5 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
dusky gopher frog translocation site during ongoing recovery
initiatives. We believe this area is essential for the conservation of
the gopher dusky frog because it provides an important breeding site
and associated forested uplands for recovery of the dusky gopher frog.
Most of Unit 11 is being actively managed by the USFS to benefit
the recovery of the dusky gopher frog. Due to the low number of
remaining populations and severely restricted range of the dusky 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 dusky gopher frogs could be translocated, is essential to
decrease the potential risk of extinction of the species and provide
for the species' eventual recovery.
Unit 12: Perry County, Mississippi
Unit 12 encompasses 121 ha (299 ac) on Federal land and private
land in Perry County, Mississippi. The majority of this unit (115 ha
(284 ac)) is located in the DNF and the remaining balance (6 ha (15
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 dusky gopher frog translocation site during ongoing recovery
initiatives. We believe this area is essential for the conservation of
the dusky gopher frog because it provides an important breeding site
and associated forested uplands for recovery of the dusky gopher frog.
Most of Unit 12 is being actively managed by the USFS to benefit
the recovery of the dusky gopher frog. Due to the low number of
remaining populations and severely restricted range of the dusky 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 dusky gopher frogs could be translocated is essential to
decrease the potential risk of extinction of the species and provide
for the species' eventual recovery.
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 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 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
[[Page 35139]]
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 Corps 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 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 dusky 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 dusky gopher frog. These activities include, but
are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would alter the hydrology or water quality of
dusky 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 dusky gopher frog breeding sites; reduce hydroperiod
below what is 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 dusky gopher frog.
(2) Forestry management actions in pine habitat that would
significantly alter the suitability of dusky gopher frog terrestrial
habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited to,
conversion of timber land to another use and 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 dusky gopher frogs.
(3) Actions that would significantly fragment and isolate dusky
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 dusky 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)
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.
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 geographical areas
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense (DOD), 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 DOD lands with a completed INRMP within the critical
habitat designation. Therefore, we are
[[Page 35140]]
not exempting any lands owned or managed by the DOD from this
designation of critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog under section
4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act.
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. The statute on its face, as well as the legislative history,
is clear that the Secretary has broad discretion regarding which
factor(s) to use and how much weight to give to any factor in making
that determination.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, the Secretary 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 will not result in the
extinction of the species.
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 prepared a draft economic analysis of the
proposed critical habitat designation and related factors (Industrial
Economics 2011, pp. 1-87). The draft analysis, dated August 17, 2011,
was made available for public comment from September 27, 2011, through
November 28, 2011 (76 FR 59774, 77 FR 2254) and again from January 17,
2012 through March 2, 2012 (77 FR 2254). Following the close of the
comment periods, a final analysis ((FEA) dated April 6, 2012) of the
potential economic effects of the designation was developed taking into
consideration the public comments and any new information (Industrial
Economics 2012, entire).
The intent of the FEA is to quantify the economic impacts of all
potential conservation efforts for the dusky gopher frog; some of these
costs will likely be incurred regardless of whether we designate
critical habitat (baseline). The economic impact of the final critical
habitat designation is analyzed by comparing scenarios both ``with
critical habitat'' and ``without critical habitat.'' The ``without
critical habitat'' scenario represents the baseline for the analysis,
considering protections already in place for the species (e.g., under
the Federal listing and other Federal, State, and local regulations).
The baseline, therefore, represents the costs incurred regardless of
whether critical habitat is designated. The ``with critical habitat''
scenario describes the incremental impacts associated specifically with
the designation of critical habitat for the species. The incremental
conservation efforts and associated economic impacts are those not
expected to occur absent the designation of critical habitat for the
species. In other words, the incremental costs are those attributable
solely to the designation of critical habitat above and beyond the
baseline costs; these are the costs we consider in the final
designation of critical habitat. The analysis looks retrospectively at
baseline impacts incurred since the species was listed, and forecasts
both baseline and incremental impacts likely to occur with the
designation of critical habitat.
The FEA also addresses how potential economic impacts are likely to
be distributed, including an assessment of any local or regional
impacts of habitat conservation and the potential effects of
conservation activities on government agencies, private businesses, and
individuals. The FEA measures lost economic efficiency associated with
residential and commercial development and public projects and
activities, such as economic impacts on water management and
transportation projects, Federal lands, small entities, and the energy
industry. Decision makers can use this information to assess whether
the effects of the designation might unduly burden a particular group
or economic sector. Finally, the FEA looks retrospectively at baseline
costs that have been incurred since 2001 (year of the species' listing)
(66 FR 62993), and uses this information to inform the economic
analysis which quantifies those costs that may occur in the 20 years
following the designation of critical habitat, which was determined to
be the appropriate period for analysis because limited planning
information was available for most activities to forecast activity
levels for projects beyond a 20-year timeframe.
The FEA quantifies economic impacts of dusky gopher frog
conservation efforts associated with the following categories of
activity: Active species management, residential and commercial
development, timber management, and military activities. The FEA
estimates present value incremental impacts of critical habitat
designation of $102,000, $20.5 million, or $34.0 million according to
three scenarios (applying a 7 percent discount rate). This equates to
$9,610, $1.93 million, and $3.21 million in annualized impacts
(applying a 7 percent discount rate). This approach was taken because
most of the estimated incremental impacts are related to possible lost
development value in Unit 1; considerable uncertainty exists regarding
the likelihood of a Federal nexus for development activities there; and
potential exists for the Service to recommend conservation measures if
consultation were to occur.
Under scenario 1, development occurring in Unit 1 avoids impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands and as such, there is no Federal nexus (no
Federal permit is required) triggering section 7 consultation regarding
dusky gopher frog critical habitat. Absent consultation, no
conservation measures are implemented for the species, and critical
habitat designation of Unit 1 does not result in any incremental
economic impact. Therefore, all incremental economic costs will be
attributed to the administrative costs of future section 7
consultations in all other units. Total present value of incremental
impacts of critical habitat designation of the remaining units are
$102,000 ($9,610 in annualized impacts) over the timeframe of the
analysis (2012 to 2031), applying a 7 percent discount rate.
According to scenarios 2 and 3, the vast majority of the
incremental impacts would stem from the lost development value of land
in Unit 1. Under scenarios 2 and 3, less than one percent of the
incremental impacts stem from the administrative costs of future
section 7 consultations. Under scenario 2, the analysis assumes the
proposed development of Unit 1 requires a Section 404 permit from the
Corps due to the presence of jurisdictional wetlands. The development
would therefore be subject to section 7
[[Page 35141]]
consultation considering critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog.
This scenario further assumes that the Service works with the landowner
to establish conservation areas for the dusky gopher frog within the
unit. The Service anticipates that approximately 40 percent of the unit
may be developed and 60 percent is managed for dusky gopher frog
conservation and recovery. According to this scenario, present value
incremental impacts of critical habitat designation due to the lost
option for developing 60 percent of Unit 1 lands are $20.4 million.
Total present value incremental impacts of critical habitat designation
across all units are therefore $20.5 million ($1.93 million in
annualized impacts), applying a 7 percent discount rate.
Scenario 3 again assumes that the proposed development of Unit 1
requires a Section 404 permit and therefore is subject to section 7
consultation. This scenario further assumes that, due to the importance
of the unit in the conservation and recovery of the species, the
Service recommends that no development occur within the unit. According
to this scenario, present value impacts of the lost option for
development in 100 percent of the unit are $33.9 million. Total present
value incremental impacts of critical habitat designation across all
units are therefore $34.0 million ($3.21 million in annualized
impacts), applying a 7 percent discount rate.
The FEA 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.
Our economic analysis did not identify any disproportionate costs
that are likely to result from the designation. Consequently, the
Secretary is not exercising his discretion to exclude any areas from
this designation of critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog based on
economic impacts.
A copy of the FEA with supporting documents may be obtained by
contacting the Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES) or by downloading from the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
National Security Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are
lands owned or managed by the DOD where a national security impact
might exist. The Mississippi Army National Guard (MANG) conducts
training in an area of the DNF where Units 10, 11, and 12 are located
and has requested exclusion under section 4(b)(2) due to significant
impacts to national security. The current training is authorized by a
Special Use Permit with the USFS. The lands covered by the permit are
part of the Leaf River WMA, which is open to the public for hunting and
other recreational activities. The USFS manages the Leaf River WMA for
timber production and as part of a habitat management area (HMA) to
support recovery efforts for the red-cockaded woodpecker. As a result
of the HMA, there are existing limitations to training activities in
this area. Permitted use by the military includes driving military
vehicles on existing roads bivouacking or orienteering in the forested
areas. No live ammunition is used in the area, and wetlands are
excluded from military use. In preparing this final rule, we have
determined that lands within the designation of critical habitat for
the dusky gopher frog are not owned or managed by DOD (See Comment 19
for further information). Consequently, the Secretary is not exercising
his discretion to exclude any areas from this final designation based
on impacts to national security.
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 final rule, we have determined that there are
currently no HCPs or other management plans for the dusky gopher frog,
and this final designation does not include any tribal lands or trust
resources. We anticipate no impact on tribal lands, partnerships, or
HCPs from this critical habitat designation. Accordingly, the Secretary
is not exercising his discretion to exclude any areas from the final
designation based on other relevant impacts.
Required Determinations
Regulatory Planning and Review (Executive Orders 12866 and 13563)
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) will review all significant rules. The Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is
not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while
calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote
predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most
innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends.
The executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches
that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for
the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and
consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further
that regulations must be based on the best available science and that
the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open
exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent
with these requirements.
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
(SBREFA) of 1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), whenever an agency must
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
(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. In this final rule, we are certifying that the critical
habitat designation for the dusky gopher frog will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The following discussion explains our rationale.
According to the Small Business Administration, small entities
include small organizations such as
[[Page 35142]]
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 on these small entities are significant, we consider the types
of activities that might trigger regulatory impacts under this rule, as
well as types of project modifications that may result. In general, the
term ``significant economic impact'' is meant to apply to the typical
operations of a small business.
To determine if the rule could significantly 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
construction of roads, storm water drainage, and bridges and culverts
and the maintenance of these structures. We apply the ``substantial
number'' test individually to each industry to determine if
certification is appropriate. However, the SBREFA does not explicitly
define ``substantial number'' or ``significant economic impact.''
Consequently, to assess whether a ``substantial number'' of small
entities is affected by this designation, this analysis considers the
relative number of small entities likely to be impacted in an area. In
some circumstances, especially with critical habitat designations of
limited extent, we may aggregate across all industries and consider
whether the total number of small entities affected is substantial. In
estimating the numbers of small entities potentially affected, we also
considered whether their activities have any Federal involvement.
Designation of critical habitat only affects activities authorized,
funded, or carried out by Federal agencies. Some kinds of activities
are unlikely to have any Federal involvement and so will not be
affected by critical habitat designation. In areas where the species is
present, Federal agencies already are required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act on activities they authorize, fund, or carry out
that may affect the dusky gopher frog. Federal agencies also must
consult with us if their activities may affect critical habitat.
Designation of critical habitat, therefore, could result in an
additional economic impact on small entities due to the requirement to
reinitiate consultation for ongoing Federal activities (see Application
of the ``Adverse Modification'' Standard).
In our FEA of the critical habitat designation, we evaluated the
potential economic effects on small entities resulting from
conservation actions related to the listing of the dusky gopher frog
and the designation of critical habitat. The analysis is based on the
estimated impacts associated with the rulemaking as described in
Chapters 1 through 5 and Appendix A of the analysis and evaluates the
potential for economic impacts related to: (1) Species management; (2)
development; (3) timber management; and (4) military activities.
The FEA indicates that the incremental impacts potentially incurred
by small entities are limited to development activities on Tradition
Properties in Subunits 2a and 2b (where 59 acres of critical habitat
overlap a planning area for a large-scale development), and potential
future development within 1,544-acre Unit 1 owned by four small
businesses and an individual. Of the 129 small businesses in this
sector, there are five small businesses, considered small Land
Subdividers, which represent approximately 3.9 percent of the total
within the counties containing proposed critical habitat for the dusky
gopher frog. At the national scale this percentage is much less.
Incremental costs of dusky 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 1 were evaluated according to the three scenarios
described above in the Economic Impacts section. Under Scenario 1,
there would be no impact to small businesses. Under scenario 2, an
impact of $1.93 million was calculated, approximately 26.8 percent of
annual revenues; under scenario 3, an impact of $3.21 million was
calculated, approximately 44.7 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. As 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 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 a 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 five small
businesses, representing 3.9 percent of the small businesses in the
affected sector, constitutes a substantial number. However, we
recognize that the potential effects to these small businesses under
Scenarios 2 and 3 may be significant, but still would not represent a
substantial number of affected entities in the sector nationally.
In summary, we considered whether this designation will result in a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Based on the above reasoning and currently available information, we
concluded that this rule will not result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore,
we are certifying that the designation of critical habitat for the
dusky gopher frog will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, and a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use--Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
[[Page 35143]]
Distribution, or Use) requires agencies to prepare Statements of Energy
Effects when undertaking certain actions. OMB has provided guidance for
implementing this Executive Order that outlines nine outcomes that may
constitute ``a significant adverse effect'' when compared to not taking
the regulatory action under consideration:
Reductions in crude oil supply in excess of 10,000 barrels
per day;
Reductions in fuel production in excess of 4,000 barrels
per day;
Reductions in coal production in excess of 5 million tons
per year;
Reductions in natural gas production in excess of 25
million thousand cubic feet per year;
Reductions in electricity production in excess of 1
billion kilowatt-hours per year or in excess of 500 megawatts of
installed capacity;
Increases in energy use required by the regulatory action
that exceed the thresholds above;
Increases in the cost of energy production in excess of
one percent;
Increases in the cost of energy distribution in excess of
one percent; or
Other similarly adverse outcomes.
While the landowner of Unit 1 has expressed interest in developing
the land for oil and gas, the Service does not anticipate critical
habitat designation will result in the complete loss of oil and gas
development in Unit 1. In addition, the level and timing of such
development is significantly uncertain regardless, as no oil and gas
development has occurred within the region to date. Consequently, this
analysis does not anticipate the rule will affect the production,
distribution, or use of energy according to the above criteria. Thus,
based on information in the economic analysis, no energy-related
impacts associated with dusky gopher frog conservation activities
within critical habitat are expected. As such, the designation of
critical habitat is not expected 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 dusky gopher frog occurs primarily
on Federal and privately owned lands. The designation of critical
habitat imposes no obligations on State or local governments. By
definition Federal agencies are not considered small entities, although
the activities they fund or permit may be proposed or carried out by
small entities. Consequently, we do not believe that the critical
habitat designation will significantly or uniquely affect small
government entities. Accordingly, a Small Government Agency Plan is not
required.
Takings--Executive Order 12630
In accordance with Executive Order 12630 (Government Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights),
the Service analyzed the potential takings implications of designating
critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog and included this analysis
in our administrative record. To a property owner, the designation of
critical habitat becomes important when viewed in the context of
section 7 of the Act, which requires all Federal agencies to ensure, in
consultation with us, that any action authorized, funded, or carried
out by the agency does not result in the destruction or adverse
modification of designated critical habitat. If, after consultation,
the Service's biological opinion concludes that a proposed action is
likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat, we are required to suggest reasonable and prudent alternatives
to the action that would avoid the destruction or adverse modification
of the critical habitat (16 U.S.C. 1536(b)(3)(A)). If we do not suggest
acceptable reasonable and prudent alternatives, the agency (or the
applicant) may apply for an exemption from the Endangered Species
Committee under section 7(e)-(n) of the Act.
We have identified two ``taking'' scenarios that are relevant to
the designation of critical habitat. The first is a physical taking
when the government's action amounts to a physical occupation or
invasion of the property, including the functional equivalent of a
practical ouster of the owner's possession. The proposed designation of
critical habitat for the dusky gopher frog would not result in physical
occupation or invasion of private property. On non-Federal lands,
activities that lack Federal involvement would not be affected by the
critical habitat designation; these activities are likely to include
timber management and oil and gas extraction. However, activities of an
economic nature that are likely to occur on non-Federal lands in the
area encompassed by this designation, and where Federal involvement may
occur, consist of construction of utilities, residential or commercial
development, and road construction and maintenance. The second scenario
is where a regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive
use of land, commonly referred to as a categorical taking. However, the
mere promulgation of a regulation designating critical habitat does not
on its face deny property
[[Page 35144]]
owners all economically viable use of their land. The Act does not
automatically restrict all uses of critical habitat, but only imposes
restrictions under section 7(a)(2) on Federal agency actions that may
result in destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Furthermore, as discussed above, if a biological opinion concludes that
a proposed action is likely to result in the destruction or adverse
modification of critical habitat, we are required to suggest reasonable
and prudent alternatives to the action that would avoid the destruction
or adverse modification of critical habitat. Such alternatives must be
economically, as well as technologically, feasible (50 CFR 402.02).
Based on information contained in the final economic analysis
assessment and described within this document, it is not likely that
economic impacts to a property owner would be of a sufficient magnitude
to support a takings action. The takings implications assessment
concludes that this designation of critical habitat for the dusky
gopher frog does not pose significant takings implications for lands
within or affected by the designation.
Federalism--Executive Order 13132
In accordance with Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), this rule
does not have significant Federalism effects. A federalism impact
summary statement is not required. In keeping with Department of the
Interior and Department of Commerce policy, we requested information
from, and coordinated development of, this critical habitat designation
with appropriate State resource agencies in Louisiana and Mississippi.
We received no comments responsive to the critical habitat designation
from a state agency except for a response from one of the peer
reviewers who is employed by a state agency. The peer reviewer's
comments were incorporated in the final rule (See Section ``Summary of
Comments and Recommendations''). The designation of critical habitat in
areas currently occupied by the dusky gopher frog imposes no additional
restrictions beyond those currently in place, although the designation
of areas currently unoccupied by the dusky gopher frog may impose
nominal additional regulatory restrictions. In total, the critical
habitat designation has little incremental impact on State and local
governments and their activities. The designation may have some benefit
to these governments in that 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) will 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 Executive Order 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 applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of the Order. We are
designating critical habitat in accordance with the provisions of the
Act. This final rule uses standard property descriptions and identifies
the elements of physical or biological features essential to the
conservation of the dusky 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.S.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)).
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 determined that there are no tribal
lands occupied by the dusky 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 dusky gopher frog that are essential
for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we are not designating
critical habitat for the dusky 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 Ecological Services Field Office (see
ADDRESSES).
Author
The primary author of this rulemaking is Linda LaClaire of the
Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
[[Page 35145]]
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50
of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
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.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h), the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, as follows:
0
a. By removing the entry for ``Frog, Mississippi gopher'' under
``AMPHIBIANS''; and
0
b. By adding an entry for ``Frog, dusky gopher'' in alphabetical order
under ``AMPHIBIANS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Amphibians
* * * * * * *
Frog, dusky gopher............... Rana sevosa......... U.S.A. (AL, LA, MS). Entire............. E 718 17.95(d) NA
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 17.95--[Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 17.95, amend paragraph (d) by adding an entry for ``Dusky
Gopher Frog (Rana sevosa),'' in the same alphabetical order that the
species appears in the table at Sec. 17.11(h), to read as follows:
Sec. 17.95 Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.
* * * * *
(d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
Dusky 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.
(2) Within these areas, the primary constituent elements of the
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the
dusky gopher frog are:
(i) 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 dusky 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) Upland forested nonbreeding habitat. Forests historically
dominated by longleaf pine, adjacent to and accessible to and from
breeding ponds, that are 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 dusky gopher frog depends upon for food, shelter, and
protection from the elements and predation.
(iii) Upland connectivity habitat. Accessible upland habitat
between breeding and nonbreeding habitats to allow for dusky gopher
frog movements between and among such sites. This habitat is
characterized by an open canopy, abundant native herbaceous species,
and a subsurface structure that provides shelter for dusky 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. Data layers defining map units were
developed from USGS 7.5' quadrangles, and critical habitat units were
then mapped using Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
(5) Note: Index map of the critical habitat units for the dusky
gopher frog follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 35146]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN12.000
(6) Unit 1: St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 quadrangle map Hickory, Louisiana. Land
bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD 83 coordinates, (E, N):
228777, 3368004; 229406, 3365105; 229384, 3365104; 229362, 3365105;
229339, 3365106; 229317, 365108; 229295, 3365110; 229273, 3365114;
229252, 3365118; 229230, 3365123; 229209, 3365129; 229188, 3365136;
229167, 3365143; 229146, 3365151; 229126, 3365160; 229106, 3365170;
229086, 3365180; 229067, 3365191; 229048, 3365203; 229030, 3365215;
229012, 3365228; 228994, 3365242; 228977, 3365256; 228961, 3365271;
228945, 3365286; 228929, 3365302; 228914, 3365318; 228900, 3365335;
228887, 3365353; 228874, 3365371; 228861, 3365389; 228850, 3365408;
228839, 3365428; 228828, 3365447; 228819, 3365467; 228810, 3365487;
228802, 3365508; 228794, 3365529; 228788, 3365550; 228782, 3365572;
228777, 3365593; 228773, 3365615; 228769, 3365637; 228766, 3365659;
228764, 3365681; 228763, 3365700; 228688, 3366732; 228321, 3367548;
227537, 3368623; 227307, 3368893; 227292, 3368909; 227278, 3368926;
227264, 3368944; 227251, 3368962; 227239, 3368980; 227227, 3368999;
227216, 3369018; 227206, 3369038; 227196, 3369058; 227187, 3369078;
227179, 3369099;
[[Page 35147]]
227172, 3369120; 227165, 3369141; 227159, 3369163; 227154, 3369184;
227150, 3369206; 227146, 3369228; 227144, 3369250; 227142, 3369272;
227140, 3369294; 227140, 3369316; 227140, 3369338; 227142, 3369360;
227144, 3369382; 227146, 3369404; 227150, 3369426; 227154, 3369448;
227159, 3369470; 227165, 3369491; 227172, 3369512; 227179, 3369533;
227187, 3369554; 227196, 3369574; 227206, 3369594; 227216, 3369614;
227227, 3369633; 227239, 3369652; 227251, 3369670; 227264, 3369688;
227278, 3369706; 227292, 3369723; 227307, 3369739; 227322, 3369755;
227338, 3369771; 227354, 3369785; 227371, 3369800; 227389, 3369813;
227407, 3369826; 227425, 3369839; 227444, 3369850; 227463, 3369861;
227483, 3369871; 227503, 3369881; 227523, 3369890; 227544, 3369898;
227565, 3369905; 227586, 3369912; 227608, 3369918; 227629, 3369923;
227651, 3369927; 227673, 3369931; 227695, 3369934; 227717, 3369936;
227739, 3369937; 227761, 3369937; 227783, 3369937; 227805, 3369936;
227827, 3369934; 227849, 3369931; 227871, 3369927; 227893, 3369923;
227915, 3369918; 227936, 3369912; 227957, 3369905; 227978, 3369898;
227999, 3369890; 228019, 3369881; 228039, 3369871; 228059, 3369861;
228078, 3369850; 228097, 3369839; 228115, 3369826; 228133, 3369813;
228151, 3369800; 228168, 3369785; 228184, 3369771; 228200, 3369755;
228216, 3369739; 228230, 3369723; 228245, 3369706; 228254, 3369693;
228903, 3368930; 228918, 3368913; 228932, 3368896; 228946, 3368879;
228959, 3368861; 228971, 3368843; 228983, 3368824; 229573, 3367995;
229585, 3367977; 229597, 3367958; 229608, 3367938; 229618, 3367919;
229628, 3367899; 229636, 3367878; 229645, 3367858; 229652, 3367837;
229659, 3367816; 229664, 3367794; 229670, 3367773; 229674, 3367751;
229677, 3367729; 229679, 3367716; 229989, 3365862; 229990, 3365857;
229995, 3365835; 229998, 3365814; 230001, 3365792; 230003, 3365769;
230004, 3365747; 230005, 3365725; 230004, 3365703; 230003, 3365681;
230001, 3365659; 229998, 3365637; 229995, 3365615; 229990, 3365593;
229985, 3365572; 229980, 3365550; 229973, 3365529; 229966, 3365508;
229957, 3365487; 229949, 3365467; 229939, 3365447; 229929, 3365428;
229918, 3365408; 229906, 3365389; 229894, 3365371; 229881, 3365353;
229867, 3365335; 229853, 3365318; 229838, 3365302; 229823, 3365286;
229807, 3365271; 229790, 3365256; 229773, 3365242; 229756, 3365228;
229738, 3365215; 229719, 3365203; 229701, 3365191; 229681, 3365180;
229662, 3365170; 229642, 3365160; 229621, 3365151; 229601, 3365143;
229580, 3365136; 229559, 3365129; 229537, 3365123; 229516, 3365118;
229494, 3365114; 229472, 3365110; 229450, 3365108; 229428, 3365106;
229406, 3365105.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 1 follows:
[[Page 35148]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN12.001
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(7) Unit 2: Harrison County, Mississippi.
(i) Subunit 2A, Harrison County, Mississippi. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangle map Success, Mississippi. Land bounded by the
following UTM Zone 16N, NAD 83 coordinates, (E, N): 300727, 3382207;
300749, 3381710; 300727, 3381710; 300705, 3381710; 300683, 3381711;
300661, 3381713; 300639, 3381716; 300617, 3381720; 300595, 3381724;
300574, 3381729; 300552, 3381735; 300531, 3381742; 300510, 3381749;
300490, 3381757; 300469, 3381766; 300449, 3381775; 300430, 3381786;
300410, 3381797; 300391, 3381808; 300373, 3381821; 300355, 3381834;
300338, 3381847; 300321, 3381861; 300304, 3381876; 300288, 3381892;
300273, 3381908; 300258, 3381924; 300244, 3381941; 300230, 3381959;
300217, 3381977; 300205, 3381995; 300193, 3382014; 300182, 3382033;
300172, 3382053; 300162, 3382073; 300153, 3382093; 300145, 3382114;
300138, 3382135; 300131, 3382156; 300125, 3382177; 300120, 3382199;
300116, 3382220; 300113, 3382242; 300110, 3382264; 300108, 3382286;
300107, 3382309; 300106, 3382331; 300107, 3382353; 300108, 3382375;
300110, 3382397; 300113, 3382419; 300116, 3382441; 300120, 3382463;
300123, 3382473; 300125, 3382484; 300131, 3382506; 300138, 3382527;
300145, 3382548;
[[Page 35149]]
300153, 3382568; 300162, 3382589; 300172, 3382609; 300182, 3382628;
300193, 3382648; 300205, 3382666; 300217, 3382685; 300230, 3382703;
300244, 3382720; 300258, 3382737; 300273, 3382754; 300288, 3382770;
300304, 3382785; 300321, 3382800; 300338, 3382814; 300355, 3382828;
300373, 3382841; 300391, 3382853; 300410, 3382865; 300430, 3382876;
300449, 3382886; 300469, 3382896; 300490, 3382904; 300510, 3382913;
300531, 3382920; 300552, 3382927; 300574, 3382932; 300595, 3382938;
300617, 3382942; 300639, 3382945; 300661, 3382948; 300661, 3382948;
300683, 3382950; 300705, 3382951; 300727, 3382952; 300749, 3382951;
300772, 3382950; 300794, 3382948; 300816, 3382945; 300837, 3382942;
300859, 3382938; 300881, 3382932; 300902, 3382927; 300923, 3382920;
300944, 3382913; 300965, 3382904; 300985, 3382896; 301005, 3382886;
301025, 3382876; 301044, 3382865; 301063, 3382853; 301081, 3382841;
301099, 3382828; 301117, 3382814; 301134, 3382800; 301150, 3382785;
301166, 3382770; 301182, 3382754; 301197, 3382737; 301203, 3382729;
301211, 3382720; 301224, 3382703; 301237, 3382685; 301250, 3382666;
301261, 3382648; 301272, 3382628; 301283, 3382609; 301292, 3382589;
301301, 3382568; 301309, 3382548; 301316, 3382527; 301317, 3382524;
301323, 3382506; 301329, 3382484; 301334, 3382463; 301338, 3382441;
301342, 3382419; 301345, 3382397; 301347, 3382375; 301348, 3382353;
301348, 3382331; 301348, 3382309; 301347, 3382286; 301345, 3382264;
301342, 3382242; 301338, 3382220; 301334, 3382199; 301329, 3382177;
301323, 3382156; 301316, 3382135; 301309, 3382114; 301301, 3382093;
301292, 3382073; 301283, 3382053; 301272, 3382033; 301261, 3382014;
301250, 3381995; 301237, 3381977; 301224, 3381959; 301211, 3381941;
301197, 3381924; 301182, 3381908; 301166, 3381892; 301150, 3381876;
301134, 3381861; 301117, 3381847; 301099, 3381834; 301081, 3381821;
301063, 3381808; 301044, 3381797; 301025, 3381786; 301005, 3381775;
300985, 3381766; 300965, 3381757; 300944, 3381749; 300923, 3381742;
300902, 3381735; 300881, 3381729; 300859, 3381724; 300837, 3381720;
300816, 3381716; 300794, 3381713; 300772, 3381711; 300749, 3381710.
(ii) Subunit 2B, Harrison County, Mississippi. From USGS 1:24,000
scale quadrangle map Success, Mississippi. Land bounded by the
following UTM Zone 16N, NAD 83 coordinates, (E, N): 301340, 3381104;
301399, 3382522; 302686, 3381163; 302704, 3381151; 302722, 3381138;
302740, 3381124; 302757, 3381110; 302773, 3381095; 302789, 3381080;
302804, 3381064; 302819, 3381048; 302833, 3381031; 302847, 3381013;
302860, 3380995; 302872, 3380977; 302884, 3380958; 302895, 3380939;
302905, 3380919; 302915, 3380899; 302924, 3380879; 302932, 3380858;
302939, 3380837; 302946, 3380816; 302952, 3380794; 302957, 3380773;
302961, 3380751; 302965, 3380729; 302967, 3380707; 302969, 3380685;
302969, 3380684; 302970, 3380663; 302971, 3380641; 302970, 3380619;
302969, 3380597; 302967, 3380575; 302965, 3380553; 302961, 3380531;
302957, 3380509; 302952, 3380487; 302950, 3380482; 302946, 3380466;
302939, 3380445; 302932, 3380424; 302924, 3380403; 302915, 3380383;
302905, 3380363; 302895, 3380343; 302884, 3380324; 302872, 3380305;
302860, 3380287; 302847, 3380269; 302833, 3380251; 302819, 3380234;
302804, 3380218; 302789, 3380202; 302773, 3380186; 302757, 3380172;
302740, 3380157; 302722, 3380144; 302704, 3380131; 302686, 3380118;
302667, 3380107; 302647, 3380096; 302628, 3380086; 302608, 3380076;
302588, 3380067; 302567, 3380059; 302546, 3380052; 302525, 3380045;
302503, 3380039; 302482, 3380034; 302460, 3380030; 302438, 3380026;
302416, 3380023; 302394, 3380022; 302372, 3380020; 302350, 3380020;
302328, 3380020; 302306, 3380022; 302283, 3380023; 302261, 3380026;
302240, 3380030; 302218, 3380034; 302196, 3380039; 302175, 3380045;
302154, 3380052; 302133, 3380059; 302112, 3380067; 302092, 3380076;
300268, 3380807; 300247, 3380814; 300226, 3380822; 300206, 3380831;
300186, 3380841; 300166, 3380851; 300147, 3380862; 300128, 3380873;
300110, 3380886; 300092, 3380899; 300074, 3380912; 300057, 3380927;
300041, 3380941; 300025, 3380957; 300009, 3380973; 299994, 3380989;
299980, 3381006; 299967, 3381024; 299954, 3381042; 299941, 3381060;
299930, 3381079; 299919, 3381098; 299908, 3381118; 299899, 3381138;
299890, 3381158; 299882, 3381179; 299875, 3381200; 299868, 3381221;
299862, 3381242; 299857, 3381264; 299853, 3381286; 299849, 3381307;
299846, 3381329; 299844, 3381352; 299843, 3381374; 299843, 3381396;
299843, 3381418; 299844, 3381440; 299846, 3381462; 299849, 3381484;
299853, 3381506; 299857, 3381528; 299862, 3381549; 299868, 3381571;
299875, 3381592; 299877, 3381598; 300078, 3382312; 300123, 3382473;
300120, 3382463; 300116, 3382441; 300113, 3382419; 300110, 3382397;
300108, 3382375; 300107, 3382353; 300106, 3382331; 300107, 3382309;
300108, 3382286; 300110, 3382264; 300113, 3382242; 300116, 3382220;
300120, 3382199; 300125, 3382177; 300131, 3382156; 300138, 3382135;
300145, 3382114; 300153, 3382093; 300162, 3382073; 300172, 3382053;
300182, 3382033; 300193, 3382014; 300205, 3381995; 300217, 3381977;
300230, 3381959; 300244, 3381941; 300258, 3381924; 300273, 3381908;
300288, 3381892; 300304, 3381876; 300321, 3381861; 300338, 3381847;
300355, 3381834; 300373, 3381821; 300391, 3381808; 300410, 3381797;
300430, 3381786; 300449, 3381775; 300469, 3381766; 300490, 3381757;
300510, 3381749; 300531, 3381742; 300552, 3381735; 300574, 3381729;
300595, 3381724; 300617, 3381720; 300639, 3381716; 300661, 3381713;
300683, 3381711; 300705, 3381710; 300727, 3381710; 300749, 3381710;
300772, 3381711; 300794, 3381713; 300816, 3381716; 300837, 3381720;
300859, 3381724; 300881, 3381729; 300902, 3381735; 300923, 3381742;
300944, 3381749; 300965, 3381757; 300985, 3381766; 301005, 3381775;
301025, 3381786; 301044, 3381797; 301063, 3381808; 301081, 3381821;
301099, 3381834; 301117, 3381847; 301134, 3381861; 301150, 3381876;
301166, 3381892; 301182, 3381908; 301197, 3381924; 301211, 3381941;
301224, 3381959; 301237, 3381977; 301250, 3381995; 301261, 3382014;
301272, 3382033; 301283, 3382053; 301292, 3382073; 301301, 3382093;
301309, 3382114; 301316, 3382135; 301323, 3382156; 301329, 3382177;
301334, 3382199; 301338, 3382220; 301342, 3382242; 301345, 3382264;
301347, 3382286; 301348, 3382309; 301348, 3382331; 301348, 3382353;
301347, 3382375; 301345, 3382397; 301342, 3382419; 301338, 3382441;
301334, 3382463; 301329, 3382484; 301323, 3382506; 301317, 3382524;
301316, 3382527; 301309, 3382548; 301301, 3382568; 301292, 3382589;
301283, 3382609; 301272, 3382628; 301261, 3382648; 301250, 3382666;
301237, 3382685; 301224, 3382703; 301211, 3382720; 301203, 3382729;
301399, 3382522.
(iii) Note: Map of Units 2 and 3 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 35150]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN12.002
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(8) Unit 3: Harrison County, Mississippi.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map White Plains,
Mississippi. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD 83
coordinates, (E, N): 311835, 3385625; 311857, 3385128; 311835, 3385128;
311812, 3385128; 311790, 3385130; 311768, 3385132; 311746, 3385134;
311724, 3385138; 311703, 3385142; 311681, 3385147; 311660, 3385153;
311639, 3385160; 311618, 3385167; 311597, 3385175; 311577, 3385184;
311557, 3385194; 311537, 3385204; 311518, 3385215; 311499, 3385227;
311480, 3385239; 311462, 3385252; 311445, 3385265; 311428, 3385280;
311411, 3385295; 311396, 3385310; 311380, 3385326; 311365, 3385342;
311351, 3385359; 311338, 3385377; 311325, 3385395; 311312, 3385413;
311301, 3385432; 311290, 3385451; 311279, 3385471; 311270, 3385491;
311261, 3385511; 311253, 3385532; 311245, 3385553; 311239, 3385574;
311233, 3385595; 311228, 3385617; 311224, 3385639; 311220, 3385661;
311217, 3385683; 311215, 3385705; 311214, 3385727; 311214, 3385749;
311214, 3385771; 311215, 3385793; 311217, 3385815; 311220, 3385837;
311224, 3385859; 311228, 3385881; 311233, 3385903; 311239, 3385924;
311245, 3385945; 311253, 3385966;
[[Page 35151]]
311261, 3385987; 311270, 3386007; 311279, 3386027; 311290, 3386047;
311301, 3386066; 311312, 3386085; 311325, 3386103; 311338, 3386121;
311351, 3386139; 311365, 3386156; 311380, 3386172; 311396, 3386188;
311411, 3386204; 311428, 3386218; 311445, 3386233; 311462, 3386246;
311480, 3386259; 311499, 3386271; 311518, 3386283; 311537, 3386294;
311557, 3386304; 311577, 3386314; 311597, 3386323; 311618, 3386331;
311639, 3386338; 311660, 3386345; 311681, 3386351; 311703, 3386356;
311724, 3386360; 311746, 3386364; 311768, 3386366; 311790, 3386368;
311812, 3386370; 311835, 3386370; 311857, 3386370; 311879, 3386368;
311901, 3386366; 311923, 3386364; 311945, 3386360; 311967, 3386356;
311988, 3386351; 312010, 3386345; 312031, 3386338; 312052, 3386331;
312072, 3386323; 312093, 3386314; 312113, 3386304; 312132, 3386294;
312152, 3386283; 312170, 3386271; 312189, 3386259; 312207, 3386246;
312224, 3386233; 312241, 3386218; 312258, 3386204; 312274, 3386188;
312289, 3386172; 312304, 3386156; 312318, 3386139; 312332, 3386121;
312345, 3386103; 312357, 3386085; 312369, 3386066; 312380, 3386047;
312390, 3386027; 312400, 3386007; 312408, 3385987; 312416, 3385966;
312424, 3385945; 312430, 3385924; 312436, 3385903; 312441, 3385881;
312446, 3385859; 312449, 3385837; 312452, 3385815; 312454, 3385793;
312455, 3385771; 312456, 3385749; 312455, 3385727; 312454, 3385705;
312452, 3385683; 312449, 3385661; 312446, 3385639; 312441, 3385617;
312436, 3385595; 312430, 3385574; 312424, 3385553; 312416, 3385532;
312408, 3385511; 312400, 3385491; 312390, 3385471; 312380, 3385451;
312369, 3385432; 312357, 3385413; 312345, 3385395; 312332, 3385377;
312318, 3385359; 312304, 3385342; 312289, 3385326; 312274, 3385310;
312258, 3385295; 312241, 3385280; 312224, 3385265; 312207, 3385252;
312189, 3385239; 312170, 3385227; 312152, 3385215; 312132, 3385204;
312113, 3385194; 312093, 3385184; 312072, 3385175; 312052, 3385167;
312031, 3385160; 312010, 3385153; 311988, 3385147; 311967, 3385142;
311945, 3385138; 311923, 3385134; 311901, 3385132; 311879, 3385130;
311857, 3385128.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 3 is provided at paragraph (7)(iii) of this
entry.
(9) Unit 4: Jackson County, Mississippi.
(i) Subunit 4A. From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Gauthier
North, Mississippi. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD 83
coordinates, (E, N): 333109, 3370810; 333632, 3370599; 333619, 3370580;
333606, 3370562; 333593, 3370545; 333579, 3370528; 333564, 3370511;
333548, 3370495; 333532, 3370480; 333516, 3370465; 333499, 3370451;
333481, 3370437; 333463, 3370425; 333445, 3370412; 333426, 3370401;
333407, 3370390; 333387, 3370379; 333367, 3370370; 333347, 3370361;
333326, 3370353; 333305, 3370345; 333284, 3370339; 333263, 3370333;
333241, 3370328; 333220, 3370323; 333198, 3370320; 333176, 3370317;
333154, 3370315; 333131, 3370314; 333109, 3370314; 333087, 3370314;
333065, 3370315; 333043, 3370317; 333021, 3370320; 332999, 3370323;
332977, 3370328; 332956, 3370333; 332934, 3370339; 332913, 3370345;
332892, 3370353; 332872, 3370361; 332851, 3370370; 332831, 3370379;
332812, 3370390; 332792, 3370401; 332774, 3370412; 332755, 3370425;
332737, 3370437; 332720, 3370451; 332703, 3370465; 332686, 3370480;
332670, 3370495; 332655, 3370511; 332640, 3370528; 332626, 3370545;
332612, 3370562; 332599, 3370580; 332587, 3370599; 332575, 3370618;
332564, 3370637; 332554, 3370657; 332544, 3370677; 332536, 3370697;
332527, 3370718; 332520, 3370739; 332513, 3370760; 332508, 3370781;
332502, 3370803; 332498, 3370824; 332495, 3370846; 332492, 3370868;
332490, 3370890; 332489, 3370912; 332488, 3370935; 332489, 3370957;
332490, 3370979; 332492, 3371001; 332495, 3371023; 332498, 3371045;
332502, 3371067; 332508, 3371088; 332513, 3371110; 332520, 3371131;
332527, 3371152; 332536, 3371172; 332544, 3371193; 332554, 3371213;
332564, 3371232; 332575, 3371251; 332587, 3371270; 332599, 3371289;
332612, 3371307; 332626, 3371324; 332640, 3371341; 332655, 3371358;
332670, 3371374; 332686, 3371389; 332703, 3371404; 332720, 3371418;
332737, 3371432; 332755, 3371445; 332766, 3371452; 332774, 3371457;
332792, 3371469; 332812, 3371480; 332831, 3371490; 332851, 3371499;
332872, 3371508; 332892, 3371516; 332913, 3371524; 332934, 3371530;
332956, 3371536; 332977, 3371541; 332999, 3371546; 333021, 3371549;
333043, 3371552; 333065, 3371554; 333087, 3371555; 333109, 3371556;
333131, 3371555; 333154, 3371554; 333176, 3371552; 333198, 3371549;
333220, 3371546; 333241, 3371541; 333263, 3371536; 333284, 3371530;
333305, 3371524; 333326, 3371516; 333347, 3371508; 333367, 3371499;
333387, 3371490; 333407, 3371480; 333426, 3371469; 333445, 3371457;
333463, 3371445; 333481, 3371432; 333499, 3371418; 333516, 3371404;
333532, 3371389; 333548, 3371374; 333564, 3371358; 333579, 3371341;
333593, 3371324; 333606, 3371307; 333619, 3371289; 333632, 3371270;
333643, 3371251; 333654, 3371232; 333665, 3371213; 333674, 3371193;
333683, 3371172; 333691, 3371152; 333699, 3371131; 333705, 3371110;
333711, 3371088; 333716, 3371067; 333720, 3371045; 333724, 3371023;
333727, 3371001; 333729, 3370979; 333730, 3370957; 333730, 3370935;
333730, 3370912; 333729, 3370890; 333727, 3370868; 333724, 3370846;
333720, 3370824; 333716, 3370803; 333711, 3370781; 333705, 3370760;
333699, 3370739; 333691, 3370718; 333683, 3370697; 333674, 3370677;
333665, 3370657; 333654, 3370637; 333643, 3370618; 333632, 3370599.
(ii) Subunit 4B. From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Gauthier
North and Ocean Springs, Mississippi. Land bounded by the following UTM
Zone 16N, NAD 83 coordinates, (E, N): 332162, 3370411; 332175, 3369717;
331717, 3369908; 331711, 3369915; 331696, 3369932; 331682, 3369949;
331668, 3369966; 331655, 3369984; 331643, 3370003; 331631, 3370021;
331621, 3370041; 331610, 3370060; 331601, 3370080; 331592, 3370101;
331584, 3370121; 331576, 3370142; 331570, 3370163; 331564, 3370185;
331559, 3370206; 331554, 3370228; 331551, 3370250; 331548, 3370272;
331546, 3370294; 331545, 3370316; 331545, 3370338; 331545, 3370360;
331546, 3370383; 331548, 3370405; 331551, 3370427; 331554, 3370448;
331559, 3370470; 331564, 3370492; 331570, 3370513; 331576, 3370534;
331584, 3370555; 331592, 3370576; 331601, 3370596; 331610, 3370616;
331621, 3370636; 331631, 3370655; 331643, 3370674; 331655, 3370692;
331668, 3370710; 331682, 3370728; 331696, 3370745; 331711, 3370761;
331726, 3370777; 331742, 3370793; 331759, 3370808; 331776, 3370822;
331793, 3370835; 331811, 3370848; 331830, 3370861; 331849, 3370872;
332766, 3371452; 332755, 3371445; 332737, 3371432; 332720, 3371418;
332703, 3371404; 332686, 3371389; 332670, 3371374; 332655, 3371358;
332640, 3371341; 332626, 3371324; 332612, 3371307; 332599, 3371289;
332587, 3371270; 332575, 3371251; 332564, 3371232; 332554, 3371213;
332544, 3371193; 332536, 3371172; 332527, 3371152; 332520, 3371131;
332513, 3371110; 332508, 3371088; 332502, 3371067; 332498, 3371045;
332495, 3371023; 332492, 3371001; 332490, 3370979; 332489, 3370957;
[[Page 35152]]
332488, 3370935; 332489, 3370912; 332490, 3370890; 332492, 3370868;
332495, 3370846; 332498, 3370824; 332502, 3370803; 332508, 3370781;
332513, 3370760; 332520, 3370739; 332527, 3370718; 332536, 3370697;
332544, 3370677; 332554, 3370657; 332564, 3370637; 332575, 3370618;
332587, 3370599; 332599, 3370580; 332612, 3370562; 332626, 3370545;
332640, 3370528; 332655, 3370511; 332670, 3370495; 332686, 3370480;
332703, 3370465; 332720, 3370451; 332737, 3370437; 332755, 3370425;
332774, 3370412; 332792, 3370401; 332812, 3370390; 332831, 3370379;
332851, 3370370; 332872, 3370361; 332892, 3370353; 332913, 3370345;
332934, 3370339; 332956, 3370333; 332977, 3370328; 332999, 3370323;
333021, 3370320; 333043, 3370317; 333065, 3370315; 333087, 3370314;
333109, 3370314; 333131, 3370314; 333154, 3370315; 333176, 3370317;
333198, 3370320; 333220, 3370323; 333241, 3370328; 333263, 3370333;
333284, 3370339; 333305, 3370345; 333326, 3370353; 333347, 3370361;
333367, 3370370; 333387, 3370379; 333407, 3370390; 333426, 3370401;
333445, 3370412; 333463, 3370425; 333481, 3370437; 333499, 3370451;
333516, 3370465; 333532, 3370480; 333548, 3370495; 333564, 3370511;
333579, 3370528; 333593, 3370545; 333606, 3370562; 333619, 3370580;
333632, 3370599; 333366, 3370173; 333359, 3370159; 333348, 3370140;
333336, 3370121; 333324, 3370103; 333311, 3370085; 333297, 3370067;
333283, 3370050; 333268, 3370034; 333253, 3370018; 333237, 3370002;
333220, 3369987; 333203, 3369973; 333186, 3369960; 333168, 3369947;
333149, 3369934; 333131, 3369923; 333111, 3369912; 333092, 3369901;
333072, 3369892; 333051, 3369883; 333031, 3369875; 333010, 3369868;
332989, 3369861; 332967, 3369855; 332946, 3369850; 332924, 3369846;
332902, 3369842; 332880, 3369839; 332867, 3369838; 332303, 3369733;
332298, 3369731; 332276, 3369727; 332254, 3369724; 332232, 3369721;
332210, 3369719; 332188, 3369718; 332175, 3369717.
(iii) Note: Map of Units 4, 5, and 6 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 35153]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN12.003
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(10) Unit 5: Jackson County, Mississippi.
(i) Subunit 5A. From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Latimer,
Mississippi. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD 83
coordinates, (E, N): 331312, 3381629; 331800, 3382137; 331809, 3382125;
331822, 3382107; 331834, 3382089; 331846, 3382070; 331857, 3382050;
331867, 3382031; 331877, 3382011; 331886, 3381990; 331894, 3381970;
331901, 3381949; 331908, 3381928; 331914, 3381906; 331919, 3381885;
331923, 3381863; 331927, 3381841; 331929, 3381819; 331931, 3381797;
331932, 3381775; 331933, 3381753; 331932, 3381731; 331931, 3381708;
331929, 3381686; 331927, 3381664; 331923, 3381643; 331919, 3381621;
331914, 3381599; 331908, 3381578; 331901, 3381557; 331894, 3381536;
331886, 3381515; 331877, 3381495; 331867, 3381475; 331857, 3381455;
331846, 3381436; 331834, 3381417; 331822, 3381399; 331809, 3381381;
331795, 3381363; 331781, 3381346; 331766, 3381330; 331751, 3381314;
331735, 3381298; 331719, 3381283; 331702, 3381269; 331684, 3381256;
331666, 3381243; 331648, 3381230; 331629, 3381219; 331610, 3381208;
331590, 3381197; 331570, 3381188; 331550, 3381179; 331529, 3381171;
331508, 3381164; 331487, 3381157;
[[Page 35154]]
331465, 3381151; 331444, 3381146; 331422, 3381142; 331400, 3381138;
331378, 3381135; 331356, 3381133; 331334, 3381132; 331312, 3381132;
331290, 3381132; 331268, 3381133; 331246, 3381135; 331224, 3381138;
331202, 3381142; 331180, 3381146; 331158, 3381151; 331137, 3381157;
331116, 3381164; 331095, 3381171; 331074, 3381179; 331054, 3381188;
331034, 3381197; 331014, 3381208; 330995, 3381219; 330976, 3381230;
330958, 3381243; 330940, 3381256; 330922, 3381269; 330905, 3381283;
330904, 3381284; 330889, 3381298; 330873, 3381314; 330857, 3381330;
330843, 3381346; 330828, 3381363; 330815, 3381381; 330802, 3381399;
330789, 3381417; 330778, 3381436; 330767, 3381455; 330757, 3381475;
330747, 3381495; 330738, 3381515; 330730, 3381536; 330723, 3381557;
330716, 3381578; 330710, 3381599; 330705, 3381621; 330701, 3381643;
330697, 3381664; 330694, 3381686; 330692, 3381708; 330691, 3381731;
330691, 3381753; 330691, 3381775; 330692, 3381797; 330694, 3381819;
330697, 3381841; 330701, 3381863; 330705, 3381885; 330710, 3381906;
330716, 3381928; 330723, 3381949; 330730, 3381970; 330738, 3381990;
330747, 3382011; 330757, 3382031; 330767, 3382050; 330778, 3382070;
330789, 3382089; 330802, 3382107; 330815, 3382125; 330828, 3382142;
330843, 3382159; 330857, 3382176; 330873, 3382192; 330889, 3382207;
330905, 3382222; 330922, 3382236; 330940, 3382250; 330958, 3382263;
330976, 3382275; 330995, 3382287; 331014, 3382298; 331034, 3382308;
331054, 3382318; 331074, 3382327; 331095, 3382335; 331116, 3382342;
331137, 3382349; 331158, 3382355; 331180, 3382360; 331202, 3382364;
331224, 3382367; 331246, 3382370; 331268, 3382372; 331290, 3382373;
331312, 3382374; 331334, 3382373; 331356, 3382372; 331378, 3382370;
331400, 3382367; 331422, 3382364; 331444, 3382360; 331465, 3382355;
331487, 3382349; 331508, 3382342; 331529, 3382335; 331550, 3382327;
331570, 3382318; 331590, 3382308; 331610, 3382298; 331629, 3382287;
331648, 3382275; 331666, 3382263; 331684, 3382250; 331702, 3382236;
331719, 3382222; 331735, 3382207; 331751, 3382192; 331766, 3382176;
331781, 3382159; 331795, 3382142; 331800, 3382137.
(ii) Subunit 5B. From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Latimer
and Vancleave, Mississippi. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N,
NAD 83 coordinates, (E, N): 332002, 3381342; 330904, 3381284; 330905,
3381283; 330922, 3381269; 330940, 3381256; 330958, 3381243; 330976,
3381230; 330995, 3381219; 331014, 3381208; 331034, 3381197; 331054,
3381188; 331074, 3381179; 331095, 3381171; 331116, 3381164; 331137,
3381157; 331158, 3381151; 331180, 3381146; 331202, 3381142; 331224,
3381138; 331246, 3381135; 331268, 3381133; 331290, 3381132; 331312,
3381132; 331334, 3381132; 331356, 3381133; 331378, 3381135; 331400,
3381138; 331422, 3381142; 331444, 3381146; 331465, 3381151; 331487,
3381157; 331508, 3381164; 331529, 3381171; 331550, 3381179; 331570,
3381188; 331590, 3381197; 331610, 3381208; 331629, 3381219; 331648,
3381230; 331666, 3381243; 331684, 3381256; 331702, 3381269; 331719,
3381283; 331735, 3381298; 331751, 3381314; 331766, 3381330; 331781,
3381346; 331795, 3381363; 331809, 3381381; 331822, 3381399; 331834,
3381417; 331846, 3381436; 331857, 3381455; 331867, 3381475; 331877,
3381495; 331886, 3381515; 331894, 3381536; 331901, 3381557; 331908,
3381578; 331914, 3381599; 331919, 3381621; 331923, 3381643; 331927,
3381664; 331929, 3381686; 331931, 3381708; 331932, 3381731; 331933,
3381753; 331932, 3381775; 331931, 3381797; 331929, 3381819; 331927,
3381841; 331923, 3381863; 331919, 3381885; 331914, 3381906; 331908,
3381928; 331901, 3381949; 331894, 3381970; 331886, 3381990; 331877,
3382011; 331867, 3382031; 331857, 3382050; 331846, 3382070; 331834,
3382089; 331822, 3382107; 331809, 3382125; 331800, 3382137; 332044,
3381881; 332052, 3381873; 332067, 3381857; 332082, 3381840; 332096,
3381823; 332110, 3381806; 332123, 3381788; 332135, 3381769; 332147,
3381750; 332158, 3381731; 332168, 3381711; 332178, 3381691; 332187,
3381671; 332195, 3381650; 332202, 3381630; 332209, 3381608; 332215,
3381587; 332220, 3381565; 332224, 3381544; 332228, 3381522; 332230,
3381500; 332232, 3381478; 332234, 3381456; 332234, 3381433; 332234,
3381411; 332232, 3381389; 332230, 3381367; 332228, 3381345; 332224,
3381323; 332220, 3381301; 332215, 3381280; 332209, 3381258; 332202,
3381237; 332195, 3381216; 332187, 3381196; 332178, 3381175; 332168,
3381155; 332158, 3381136; 332147, 3381117; 332135, 3381098; 332123,
3381079; 332110, 3381061; 332096, 3381044; 332082, 3381027; 332067,
3381010; 332052, 3380994; 332036, 3380979; 332020, 3380964; 332003,
3380950; 331985, 3380936; 331967, 3380923; 331949, 3380911; 331930,
3380899; 331911, 3380888; 331891, 3380878; 331871, 3380869; 331851,
3380860; 331830, 3380852; 331809, 3380844; 331788, 3380838; 331767,
3380832; 331745, 3380827; 331723, 3380822; 331701, 3380819; 331679,
3380816; 331657, 3380814; 331635, 3380813; 331613, 3380812; 331591,
3380813; 331569, 3380814; 331547, 3380816; 331525, 3380819; 331503,
3380822; 331481, 3380827; 331459, 3380832; 331438, 3380838; 331417,
3380844; 331396, 3380852; 331375, 3380860; 331355, 3380869; 331335,
3380878; 331315, 3380888; 331296, 3380899; 331277, 3380911; 331259,
3380923; 331241, 3380936; 331223, 3380950; 331206, 3380964; 331190,
3380979; 331174, 3380994; 331158, 3381010; 331144, 3381027; 331143,
3381027; 330904, 3381284.
(iii) Note: Map of Unit 5 is provided at paragraph (9)(iii) of this
entry.
(11) Unit 6: Jackson County, Mississippi.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Vancleave, Mississippi.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD 83 coordinates, (E, N):
343468, 3381436; 343490, 3380939; 343468, 3380939; 343446, 3380939;
343424, 3380940; 343402, 3380942; 343380, 3380945; 343358, 3380949;
343336, 3380953; 343314, 3380958; 343293, 3380964; 343272, 3380971;
343251, 3380978; 343230, 3380986; 343210, 3380995; 343190, 3381005;
343170, 3381015; 343151, 3381026; 343132, 3381037; 343114, 3381050;
343096, 3381063; 343078, 3381076; 343061, 3381091; 343045, 3381105;
343029, 3381121; 343014, 3381137; 342999, 3381153; 342984, 3381170;
342971, 3381188; 342958, 3381206; 342946, 3381224; 342934, 3381243;
342923, 3381262; 342913, 3381282; 342903, 3381302; 342894, 3381322;
342886, 3381343; 342879, 3381364; 342872, 3381385; 342866, 3381406;
342861, 3381428; 342857, 3381450; 342853, 3381472; 342851, 3381493;
342849, 3381516; 342847, 3381538; 342847, 3381560; 342847, 3381582;
342849, 3381604; 342851, 3381626; 342853, 3381648; 342857, 3381670;
342861, 3381692; 342866, 3381713; 342872, 3381735; 342879, 3381756;
342886, 3381777; 342894, 3381798; 342903, 3381818; 342913, 3381838;
342923, 3381857; 342934, 3381877; 342946, 3381896; 342958, 3381914;
342971, 3381932; 342984, 3381950; 342999, 3381967; 343014, 3381983;
343029, 3381999; 343045, 3382014; 343061, 3382029; 343078, 3382043;
343096, 3382057; 343114, 3382070; 343132, 3382082; 343151, 3382094;
343170, 3382105; 343190, 3382115; 343210, 3382125; 343230, 3382134;
[[Page 35155]]
343251, 3382142; 343272, 3382149; 343293, 3382156; 343314, 3382162;
343336, 3382167; 343358, 3382171; 343380, 3382175; 343402, 3382177;
343424, 3382179; 343446, 3382180; 343468, 3382181; 343490, 3382180;
343512, 3382179; 343534, 3382177; 343556, 3382175; 343578, 3382171;
343600, 3382167; 343622, 3382162; 343643, 3382156; 343664, 3382149;
343685, 3382142; 343706, 3382134; 343726, 3382125; 343746, 3382115;
343766, 3382105; 343785, 3382094; 343804, 3382082; 343822, 3382070;
343840, 3382057; 343858, 3382043; 343875, 3382029; 343891, 3382014;
343907, 3381999; 343923, 3381983; 343937, 3381967; 343952, 3381950;
343965, 3381932; 343978, 3381914; 343990, 3381896; 344002, 3381877;
344013, 3381857; 344023, 3381838; 344033, 3381818; 344042, 3381798;
344050, 3381777; 344057, 3381756; 344064, 3381735; 344070, 3381713;
344075, 3381692; 344079, 3381670; 344083, 3381648; 344085, 3381626;
344087, 3381604; 344089, 3381582; 344089, 3381560; 344089, 3381538;
344087, 3381516; 344085, 3381493; 344083, 3381472; 344079, 3381450;
344075, 3381428; 344070, 3381406; 344064, 3381385; 344057, 3381364;
344050, 3381343; 344042, 3381322; 344033, 3381302; 344023, 3381282;
344013, 3381262; 344002, 3381243; 343990, 3381224; 343978, 3381206;
343965, 3381188; 343952, 3381170; 343937, 3381153; 343923, 3381137;
343907, 3381121; 343891, 3381105; 343875, 3381091; 343858, 3381076;
343840, 3381063; 343822, 3381050; 343804, 3381037; 343785, 3381026;
343766, 3381015; 343746, 3381005; 343726, 3380995; 343706, 3380986;
343685, 3380978; 343664, 3380971; 343643, 3380964; 343622, 3380958;
343600, 3380953; 343578, 3380949; 343556, 3380945; 343534, 3380942;
343512, 3380940; 343490, 3380939.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 6 is provided at paragraph (9)(iii) of this
entry.
(12) Unit 7: Jackson County, Mississippi.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Big Point, Mississippi.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD 83 coordinates, (E, N):
356810, 3377501; 356832, 3377004; 356810, 3377004; 356788, 3377004;
356766, 3377006; 356744, 3377008; 356722, 3377010; 356700, 3377014;
356678, 3377018; 356657, 3377023; 356635, 3377029; 356614, 3377036;
356593, 3377043; 356573, 3377051; 356552, 3377060; 356532, 3377070;
356513, 3377080; 356493, 3377091; 356474, 3377103; 356456, 3377115;
356438, 3377128; 356421, 3377142; 356404, 3377156; 356387, 3377171;
356371, 3377186; 356356, 3377202; 356341, 3377218; 356327, 3377235;
356313, 3377253; 356300, 3377271; 356288, 3377289; 356276, 3377308;
356265, 3377327; 356255, 3377347; 356245, 3377367; 356236, 3377387;
356228, 3377408; 356221, 3377429; 356214, 3377450; 356208, 3377471;
356203, 3377493; 356199, 3377515; 356196, 3377537; 356193, 3377559;
356191, 3377581; 356190, 3377603; 356189, 3377625; 356190, 3377647;
356191, 3377669; 356193, 3377691; 356196, 3377713; 356199, 3377735;
356203, 3377757; 356208, 3377779; 356214, 3377800; 356221, 3377821;
356228, 3377842; 356236, 3377863; 356245, 3377883; 356255, 3377903;
356265, 3377923; 356276, 3377942; 356288, 3377961; 356300, 3377979;
356313, 3377997; 356327, 3378015; 356341, 3378032; 356356, 3378048;
356371, 3378064; 356387, 3378080; 356404, 3378094; 356421, 3378109;
356438, 3378122; 356456, 3378135; 356474, 3378147; 356493, 3378159;
356513, 3378170; 356532, 3378180; 356552, 3378190; 356573, 3378199;
356593, 3378207; 356614, 3378214; 356635, 3378221; 356657, 3378227;
356678, 3378232; 356700, 3378236; 356722, 3378240; 356744, 3378242;
356766, 3378244; 356788, 3378246; 356810, 3378246; 356832, 3378246;
356855, 3378244; 356877, 3378242; 356899, 3378240; 356920, 3378236;
356942, 3378232; 356964, 3378227; 356985, 3378221; 357006, 3378214;
357027, 3378207; 357048, 3378199; 357068, 3378190; 357088, 3378180;
357108, 3378170; 357127, 3378159; 357146, 3378147; 357164, 3378135;
357182, 3378122; 357200, 3378109; 357217, 3378094; 357233, 3378080;
357249, 3378064; 357265, 3378048; 357280, 3378032; 357294, 3378015;
357307, 3377997; 357320, 3377979; 357333, 3377961; 357344, 3377942;
357355, 3377923; 357366, 3377903; 357375, 3377883; 357384, 3377863;
357392, 3377842; 357399, 3377821; 357406, 3377800; 357412, 3377779;
357417, 3377757; 357421, 3377735; 357425, 3377713; 357428, 3377691;
357430, 3377669; 357431, 3377647; 357431, 3377625; 357431, 3377603;
357430, 3377581; 357428, 3377559; 357425, 3377537; 357421, 3377515;
357417, 3377493; 357412, 3377471; 357406, 3377450; 357399, 3377429;
357392, 3377408; 357384, 3377387; 357375, 3377367; 357366, 3377347;
357355, 3377327; 357344, 3377308; 357333, 3377289; 357320, 3377271;
357307, 3377253; 357294, 3377235; 357280, 3377218; 357265, 3377202;
357249, 3377186; 357233, 3377171; 357217, 3377156; 357200, 3377142;
357182, 3377128; 357164, 3377115; 357146, 3377103; 357127, 3377091;
357108, 3377080; 357088, 3377070; 357068, 3377060; 357048, 3377051;
357027, 3377043; 357006, 3377036; 356985, 3377029; 356964, 3377023;
356942, 3377018; 356920, 3377014; 356899, 3377010; 356877, 3377008;
356855, 3377006; 356832, 3377004.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 7 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 35156]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN12.004
(13) Unit 8: Forrest County, Mississippi.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Brooklyn, Mississippi.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD 83 coordinates, (E, N):
292305, 3434903; 292328, 3434158; 292305, 3434157; 292283, 3434158;
292261, 3434159; 292239, 3434161; 292217, 3434164; 292195, 3434167;
292173, 3434172; 292152, 3434177; 292130, 3434183; 292109, 3434189;
292088, 3434197; 292068, 3434205; 292047, 3434214; 292027, 3434223;
292008, 3434233; 291989, 3434244; 291970, 3434256; 291951, 3434268;
291933, 3434281; 291916, 3434295; 291899, 3434309; 291882, 3434324;
291866, 3434339; 291851, 3434355; 291836, 3434372; 291822, 3434389;
291808, 3434406; 291795, 3434424; 291783, 3434443; 291771, 3434462;
291760, 3434481; 291750, 3434501; 291741, 3434521; 291732, 3434541;
291724, 3434561; 291716, 3434582; 291710, 3434604; 291704, 3434625;
291699, 3434646; 291694, 3434668; 291691, 3434690; 291688, 3434712;
291686, 3434734; 291685, 3434756; 291684, 3434778; 291685, 3434801;
291686, 3434823; 291688, 3434845; 291691, 3434867; 291694, 3434889;
291699, 3434910; 291704, 3434932; 291710, 3434953; 291716, 3434975;
291724, 3434996; 291732, 3435016; 291741, 3435036; 291750, 3435056;
[[Page 35157]]
291760, 3435076; 291771, 3435095; 291783, 3435114; 291795, 3435133;
291808, 3435151; 291822, 3435168; 291836, 3435185; 291851, 3435202;
291866, 3435218; 291882, 3435233; 291899, 3435248; 291916, 3435262;
291919, 3435265; 291922, 3435267; 291933, 3435276; 291951, 3435289;
291970, 3435301; 291989, 3435313; 292008, 3435324; 292027, 3435334;
292047, 3435343; 292068, 3435352; 292088, 3435360; 292109, 3435368;
292130, 3435374; 292152, 3435380; 292173, 3435385; 292195, 3435390;
292217, 3435393; 292239, 3435396; 292261, 3435398; 292283, 3435399;
292305, 3435399; 292328, 3435399; 292350, 3435398; 292372, 3435396;
292394, 3435393; 292416, 3435390; 292437, 3435385; 292459, 3435380;
292480, 3435374; 292502, 3435368; 292522, 3435360; 292543, 3435352;
292563, 3435343; 292583, 3435334; 292603, 3435324; 292622, 3435313;
292641, 3435301; 292660, 3435289; 292678, 3435276; 292695, 3435262;
292712, 3435248; 292729, 3435233; 292745, 3435218; 292760, 3435202;
292775, 3435185; 292789, 3435168; 292803, 3435151; 292816, 3435133;
292828, 3435114; 292839, 3435095; 292850, 3435076; 292861, 3435056;
292870, 3435036; 292879, 3435016; 292887, 3434996; 292895, 3434975;
292901, 3434953; 292907, 3434932; 292912, 3434910; 292917, 3434889;
292920, 3434867; 292923, 3434845; 292925, 3434823; 292926, 3434801;
292926, 3434778; 292926, 3434756; 292925, 3434734; 292923, 3434712;
292920, 3434690; 292917, 3434668; 292912, 3434646; 292907, 3434625;
292901, 3434604; 292895, 3434582; 292887, 3434561; 292879, 3434541;
292870, 3434521; 292861, 3434501; 292850, 3434481; 292839, 3434462;
292828, 3434443; 292816, 3434424; 292803, 3434406; 292789, 3434389;
292775, 3434372; 292760, 3434355; 292745, 3434339; 292729, 3434324;
292712, 3434309; 292695, 3434295; 292678, 3434281; 292660, 3434268;
292641, 3434256; 292622, 3434244; 292603, 3434233; 292583, 3434223;
292563, 3434214; 292543, 3434205; 292522, 3434197; 292502, 3434189;
292480, 3434183; 292459, 3434177; 292437, 3434172; 292416, 3434167;
292394, 3434164; 292372, 3434161; 292350, 3434159; 292328, 3434158.
(ii) Note: Map of Units 8 and 9 follows:
[[Page 35158]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN12.005
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(14) Unit 9: Forrest County, Mississippi.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Brooklyn, Mississippi.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD 83 coordinates, (E, N):
294462, 3432341; 294484, 3431844; 294462, 3431844; 294439, 3431844;
294417, 3431845; 294395, 3431847; 294373, 3431850; 294351, 3431854;
294330, 3431858; 294308, 3431863; 294287, 3431869; 294266, 3431876;
294245, 3431883; 294224, 3431891; 294204, 3431900; 294184, 3431909;
294164, 3431920; 294145, 3431931; 294126, 3431942; 294107, 3431955;
294089, 3431968; 294072, 3431981; 294055, 3431995; 294038, 3432010;
294023, 3432026; 294007, 3432042; 293992, 3432058; 293978, 3432075;
293964, 3432093; 293952, 3432111; 293939, 3432129; 293928, 3432148;
293917, 3432167; 293906, 3432187; 293897, 3432207; 293888, 3432227;
293880, 3432248; 293872, 3432269; 293866, 3432290; 293860, 3432311;
293855, 3432333; 293850, 3432355; 293847, 3432376; 293844, 3432398;
293842, 3432420; 293841, 3432443; 293841, 3432465; 293841, 3432487;
293842, 3432509; 293844, 3432531; 293847, 3432553; 293850, 3432575;
293855, 3432597; 293860, 3432618; 293866, 3432640; 293872, 3432661;
293880, 3432682; 293888, 3432702;
[[Page 35159]]
293897, 3432723; 293906, 3432743; 293917, 3432762; 293928, 3432782;
293939, 3432801; 293952, 3432819; 293964, 3432837; 293978, 3432854;
293992, 3432871; 294007, 3432888; 294023, 3432904; 294038, 3432919;
294055, 3432934; 294072, 3432948; 294089, 3432962; 294107, 3432975;
294126, 3432987; 294145, 3432999; 294164, 3433010; 294184, 3433020;
294204, 3433030; 294224, 3433039; 294245, 3433047; 294266, 3433054;
294287, 3433061; 294308, 3433066; 294330, 3433072; 294351, 3433076;
294373, 3433079; 294395, 3433082; 294417, 3433084; 294439, 3433085;
294462, 3433086; 294484, 3433085; 294506, 3433084; 294528, 3433082;
294550, 3433079; 294572, 3433076; 294594, 3433072; 294615, 3433066;
294637, 3433061; 294658, 3433054; 294679, 3433047; 294699, 3433039;
294720, 3433030; 294740, 3433020; 294759, 3433010; 294779, 3432999;
294797, 3432987; 294816, 3432975; 294834, 3432962; 294851, 3432948;
294868, 3432934; 294885, 3432919; 294901, 3432904; 294916, 3432888;
294931, 3432871; 294945, 3432854; 294959, 3432837; 294972, 3432819;
294984, 3432801; 294996, 3432782; 295007, 3432762; 295017, 3432743;
295027, 3432723; 295035, 3432702; 295043, 3432682; 295051, 3432661;
295057, 3432640; 295063, 3432618; 295068, 3432597; 295073, 3432575;
295076, 3432553; 295079, 3432531; 295081, 3432509; 295082, 3432487;
295083, 3432465; 295082, 3432443; 295081, 3432420; 295079, 3432398;
295076, 3432376; 295073, 3432355; 295068, 3432333; 295063, 3432311;
295057, 3432290; 295051, 3432269; 295043, 3432248; 295035, 3432227;
295027, 3432207; 295017, 3432187; 295007, 3432167; 294996, 3432148;
294984, 3432129; 294972, 3432111; 294959, 3432093; 294945, 3432075;
294931, 3432058; 294916, 3432042; 294901, 3432026; 294885, 3432010;
294874, 3432000; 294868, 3431995; 294851, 3431981; 294834, 3431968;
294816, 3431955; 294797, 3431942; 294779, 3431931; 294759, 3431920;
294740, 3431909; 294720, 3431900; 294699, 3431891; 294682, 3431884;
294679, 3431883; 294658, 3431876; 294637, 3431869; 294615, 3431863;
294594, 3431858; 294572, 3431854; 294550, 3431850; 294528, 3431847;
294506, 3431845; 294484, 3431844.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 9 is provided at paragraph (13)(ii) of this
entry.
(15) Unit 10: Perry County, Mississippi.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Barbara, Mississippi.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD 83 coordinates, (E, N):
316810, 3422707; 317164, 3421954; 317142, 3421953; 317119, 3421954;
317063, 3421956; 316926, 3421961; 316925, 3421961; 316735, 3421968;
316713, 3421970; 316691, 3421972; 316669, 3421974; 316662, 3421976;
316647, 3421978; 316626, 3421982; 316604, 3421987; 316583, 3421993;
316561, 3422000; 316541, 3422007; 316520, 3422015; 316500, 3422024;
316480, 3422034; 316460, 3422044; 316441, 3422055; 316422, 3422067;
316403, 3422079; 316385, 3422092; 316368, 3422106; 316351, 3422120;
316334, 3422135; 316318, 3422150; 316303, 3422166; 316288, 3422182;
316274, 3422199; 316260, 3422217; 316247, 3422235; 316235, 3422253;
316223, 3422272; 316212, 3422291; 316202, 3422311; 316193, 3422331;
316184, 3422351; 316176, 3422372; 316168, 3422393; 316162, 3422414;
316156, 3422436; 316151, 3422457; 316146, 3422479; 316143, 3422501;
316140, 3422523; 316138, 3422545; 316137, 3422567; 316137, 3422589;
316137, 3422611; 316138, 3422633; 316140, 3422655; 316143, 3422677;
316146, 3422699; 316151, 3422721; 316156, 3422743; 316162, 3422764;
316168, 3422785; 316176, 3422806; 316184, 3422827; 316193, 3422847;
316202, 3422867; 316212, 3422887; 316223, 3422906; 316235, 3422925;
316247, 3422943; 316260, 3422961; 316274, 3422979; 316288, 3422996;
316303, 3423012; 316318, 3423028; 316334, 3423044; 316351, 3423058;
316368, 3423073; 316385, 3423086; 316403, 3423099; 316422, 3423112;
316441, 3423123; 316460, 3423134; 316480, 3423144; 316500, 3423154;
316520, 3423163; 316541, 3423171; 316561, 3423178; 316583, 3423185;
316604, 3423191; 316626, 3423196; 316647, 3423200; 316669, 3423204;
316691, 3423207; 316713, 3423209; 316735, 3423210; 316758, 3423210;
316780, 3423210; 316802, 3423209; 316804, 3423208; 317147, 3423195;
317164, 3423195; 317186, 3423194; 317208, 3423192; 317230, 3423189;
317252, 3423186; 317274, 3423181; 317295, 3423176; 317317, 3423170;
317338, 3423164; 317359, 3423156; 317379, 3423148; 317400, 3423139;
317420, 3423130; 317439, 3423119; 317458, 3423108; 317476, 3423097;
317474, 3422836; 317472, 3422760; 317466, 3422451; 317463, 3422043;
317458, 3422040; 317439, 3422029; 317420, 3422019; 317400, 3422010;
317379, 3422001; 317359, 3421993; 317338, 3421985; 317317, 3421979;
317295, 3421973; 317274, 3421968; 317252, 3421963; 317230, 3421960;
317208, 3421957; 317186, 3421955; 317164, 3421954.
(ii) Note: Map of Units 10, 11, and 12 follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 35160]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JN12.006
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
(16) Unit 11: Perry County, Mississippi.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle maps Barbara and Avent,
Mississippi. Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD 83
coordinates, (E, N): 320420, 3421781; 320442, 3421285; 320420, 3421284;
320398, 3421285; 320376, 3421286; 320354, 3421288; 320332, 3421291;
320310, 3421294; 320288, 3421298; 320267, 3421303; 320245, 3421309;
320224, 3421316; 320203, 3421323; 320182, 3421331; 320162, 3421340;
320142, 3421350; 320122, 3421360; 320103, 3421371; 320084, 3421383;
320066, 3421395; 320048, 3421408; 320030, 3421422; 320013, 3421436;
319997, 3421451; 319981, 3421466; 319966, 3421482; 319951, 3421499;
319937, 3421516; 319923, 3421533; 319910, 3421551; 319898, 3421569;
319886, 3421588; 319875, 3421607; 319875, 3421608; 319865, 3421627;
319855, 3421647; 319846, 3421668; 319838, 3421688; 319831, 3421709;
319824, 3421730; 319818, 3421752; 319813, 3421773; 319809, 3421795;
319805, 3421817; 319803, 3421839; 319801, 3421861; 319800, 3421883;
319799, 3421905; 319800, 3421927; 319801, 3421950; 319803, 3421972;
319805, 3421994; 319808, 3422007; 319809, 3422015; 319813, 3422037;
319818, 3422059; 319824, 3422080;
[[Page 35161]]
319831, 3422101; 319838, 3422122; 319846, 3422143; 319855, 3422163;
319865, 3422183; 319875, 3422203; 319886, 3422222; 319898, 3422241;
319910, 3422259; 319923, 3422277; 319937, 3422295; 319951, 3422312;
319966, 3422328; 319981, 3422344; 319997, 3422360; 320013, 3422375;
320030, 3422389; 320048, 3422402; 320066, 3422415; 320084, 3422428;
320103, 3422439; 320122, 3422450; 320142, 3422461; 320162, 3422470;
320182, 3422479; 320203, 3422487; 320224, 3422494; 320245, 3422501;
320267, 3422507; 320288, 3422512; 320310, 3422516; 320332, 3422520;
320354, 3422523; 320376, 3422525; 320398, 3422526; 320420, 3422526;
320442, 3422526; 320464, 3422525; 320486, 3422523; 320508, 3422520;
320530, 3422516; 320552, 3422512; 320574, 3422507; 320595, 3422501;
320616, 3422494; 320637, 3422487; 320658, 3422479; 320678, 3422470;
320698, 3422461; 320718, 3422450; 320737, 3422439; 320756, 3422428;
320774, 3422415; 320792, 3422402; 320810, 3422389; 320827, 3422375;
320843, 3422360; 320859, 3422344; 320875, 3422328; 320889, 3422312;
320904, 3422295; 320917, 3422277; 320930, 3422259; 320943, 3422241;
320954, 3422222; 320965, 3422203; 320975, 3422183; 320985, 3422163;
320994, 3422143; 321002, 3422122; 321009, 3422101; 321016, 3422080;
321022, 3422059; 321027, 3422037; 321031, 3422015; 321035, 3421994;
321038, 3421972; 321040, 3421950; 321041, 3421927; 321041, 3421905;
321041, 3421883; 321040, 3421861; 321038, 3421839; 321035, 3421817;
321031, 3421795; 321027, 3421773; 321022, 3421752; 321016, 3421730;
321009, 3421709; 321002, 3421688; 320994, 3421668; 320985, 3421647;
320975, 3421627; 320965, 3421608; 320954, 3421588; 320943, 3421569;
320930, 3421551; 320917, 3421533; 320904, 3421516; 320889, 3421499;
320875, 3421482; 320859, 3421466; 320843, 3421451; 320827, 3421436;
320810, 3421422; 320792, 3421408; 320774, 3421395; 320756, 3421383;
320737, 3421371; 320718, 3421360; 320698, 3421350; 320678, 3421340;
320658, 3421331; 320637, 3421323; 320616, 3421316; 320595, 3421309;
320574, 3421303; 320552, 3421298; 320530, 3421294; 320508, 3421291;
320486, 3421288; 320464, 3421286; 320442, 3421285.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 11 is provided at paragraph (15)(ii) of this
entry.
(17) Unit 12: Perry County, Mississippi.
(i) From USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Barbara, Mississippi.
Land bounded by the following UTM Zone 16N, NAD 83 coordinates, (E, N):
320239, 3425675; 320261, 3425178; 320239, 3425178; 320216, 3425178;
320194, 3425180; 320172, 3425182; 320150, 3425184; 320128, 3425188;
320107, 3425192; 320085, 3425197; 320064, 3425203; 320042, 3425210;
320021, 3425217; 320001, 3425225; 319981, 3425234; 319961, 3425244;
319941, 3425254; 319922, 3425265; 319903, 3425277; 319884, 3425289;
319866, 3425302; 319849, 3425315; 319832, 3425330; 319815, 3425344;
319799, 3425360; 319784, 3425376; 319769, 3425392; 319755, 3425409;
319741, 3425427; 319728, 3425445; 319716, 3425463; 319704, 3425482;
319693, 3425501; 319683, 3425521; 319674, 3425541; 319665, 3425561;
319657, 3425582; 319649, 3425603; 319643, 3425624; 319637, 3425645;
319632, 3425667; 319627, 3425689; 319624, 3425711; 319621, 3425733;
319619, 3425755; 319618, 3425777; 319618, 3425799; 319618, 3425821;
319619, 3425843; 319621, 3425865; 319624, 3425887; 319627, 3425909;
319632, 3425931; 319637, 3425953; 319643, 3425974; 319649, 3425995;
319656, 3426015; 319657, 3426016; 319665, 3426037; 319674, 3426057;
319683, 3426077; 319693, 3426097; 319704, 3426116; 319716, 3426135;
319728, 3426153; 319741, 3426171; 319755, 3426189; 319769, 3426206;
319784, 3426222; 319799, 3426238; 319815, 3426254; 319832, 3426268;
319849, 3426283. 319866, 3426296; 319884, 3426309; 319903, 3426321;
319922, 3426333; 319941, 3426344; 319952, 3426350; 319961, 3426354;
319981, 3426364; 320001, 3426373; 320021, 3426381; 320042, 3426388;
320064, 3426395; 320085, 3426401; 320107, 3426406; 320128, 3426410;
320150, 3426414; 320172, 3426416; 320194, 3426418; 320216, 3426420;
320239, 3426420; 320261, 3426420; 320283, 3426418; 320305, 3426416;
320327, 3426414; 320349, 3426410; 320371, 3426406; 320392, 3426401;
320413, 3426395; 320435, 3426388; 320456, 3426381; 320476, 3426373;
320496, 3426364; 320516, 3426354; 320536, 3426344; 320555, 3426333;
320574, 3426321; 320593, 3426309; 320611, 3426296; 320628, 3426283;
320645, 3426268; 320662, 3426254; 320678, 3426238; 320693, 3426222;
320708, 3426206; 320722, 3426189; 320736, 3426171; 320749, 3426153;
320761, 3426135; 320773, 3426116; 320784, 3426097; 320794, 3426077;
320803, 3426057; 320812, 3426037; 320820, 3426016; 320828, 3425995;
320834, 3425974; 320840, 3425953; 320845, 3425931; 320850, 3425909;
320853, 3425887; 320856, 3425865; 320858, 3425843; 320859, 3425821;
320860, 3425799; 320859, 3425777; 320858, 3425755; 320856, 3425733;
320853, 3425711; 320850, 3425689; 320845, 3425667; 320840, 3425645;
320834, 3425624; 320828, 3425603; 320820, 3425582; 320812, 3425561;
320803, 3425541; 320794, 3425521; 320784, 3425501; 320773, 3425482;
320761, 3425463; 320749, 3425445; 320736, 3425427; 320722, 3425409;
320708, 3425392; 320693, 3425376; 320678, 3425360; 320662, 3425344;
320645, 3425330; 320628, 3425315; 320611, 3425302; 320593, 3425289;
320574, 3425277; 320555, 3425265; 320536, 3425254; 320516, 3425244;
320496, 3425234; 320476, 3425225; 320456, 3425217; 320435, 3425210;
320413, 3425203; 320392, 3425197; 320371, 3425192; 320349, 3425188;
320327, 3425184; 320305, 3425182; 320283, 3425180; 320261, 3425178.
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 12 is provided at paragraph (15)(ii) of this
entry.
* * * * *
Dated: May 29, 2012.
Rachel Jacobson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2012-13488 Filed 6-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P