Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33283

Dated: May 18, 2000.

Irene M. Flannery,

Chief, Accounting Policy Division.

[FR Doc. 00–12981 Filed 5–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AF90

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Rule To List the

Mississippi Gopher Frog Distinct

Population Segment of Dusky Gopher

Frog as Endangered

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife

Service, propose to list the Mississippi

gopher frog distinct population segment

of the dusky gopher frog (Rana capito

sevosa) as an endangered species under

the authority of the Endangered Species

Act of 1973, as amended (Act).

Historically, the Mississippi gopher frog

occurred in at least nine counties or

parishes across Louisiana, Mississippi,

and Alabama, ranging from east of the

Mississippi River in Louisiana to the

Mobile River delta in Alabama. Today,

it is known from only one site in

Harrison County, Mississippi. This last

surviving population is threatened by

habitat destruction and degradation

from a proposed housing development

on property within 200 meters (m) (656

feet (ft)) of its only remaining breeding

pond; the construction and expansion of

two highways in the vicinity of the

pond; and a proposed reservoir. These

actions pose threats to the terrestrial

habitat of adult frogs and their ability to

offset mortality rates with reproduction

and recruitment. This proposed rule, if

made final, would extend the Act’s

protection to the Mississippi gopher frog

distinct population segment.

DATES: Send your comments to reach us

on or before July 24, 2000. We will not

consider comments received after the

above date in making our decision on

the proposed rule. We must receive

requests for public hearings by July 7,

2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments and

materials concerning this proposal to

the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Mississippi Field

Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway,

Jackson, Mississippi 39213. Comments

and materials received will be available

for public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Linda LaClaire at the above address,

telephone 601/965–4900, or facsimile

601/965–4340.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The gopher frog (Rana capito) is a

member of the large cosmopolitan

family, Ranidae (‘‘true frogs’’). The

genus Rana is the only North American

representative of this family. We define

the Mississippi gopher frog distinct

population segment as those

populations of gopher frogs in the lower

coastal plain ranging from the

Mississippi River in Louisiana to the

Mobile River delta of Alabama. Goin

and Netting (1940) described frogs from

this geographic range as a distinct

species of gopher frog, Rana sevosa. The

taxonomic history of gopher frogs is

complex (summary in Altig and

Lohoefener 1983). Subsequent to the

original description by Goin and

Netting, frogs of this population

segment were considered subspecies of

Rana capito (gopher frog) (R. c. sevosa)

(Wright and Wright 1942) and later

subspecies of R. areolata (crayfish frog)

(R. a. sevosa) (Viosca 1949). In 1991,

Collins challenged the taxonomic

arrangement that lumped crayfish frogs

and gopher frogs together as one species

and recommended their separation

based on biogeographical grounds. This

arrangement was followed by Conant

and Collins (1991), who again

recognized the name R. c. sevosa.

Wright and Wright (1942) first used the

common name of ‘‘dusky gopher frog’’

for this subspecies, and it has been used

in subsequent publications. The range of

the subspecies, as presently described,

also extends to the Gulf Coast of western

Florida and adjacent Alabama (Conant

and Collins 1991).

Young (1997) conducted the first

comprehensive biochemical analysis of

the relationships between gopher frogs

and crayfish frogs and among

subspecies of gopher frogs. She used

allozyme electrophoresis (an assay

(examination) of gene products) to

examine allelic (genetic) differences

between and among populations.

Allozyme data have been used

extensively to investigate the evolution

of genetic relationships among related

species. Young found strong support for

the species designations R. areolata

(crayfish frogs) and R. capito (gopher

frogs). Gopher and crayfish frogs varied

from each other by fixed differences at

four loci (specific locations on a gene).

In addition, she found that populations

of gopher frogs from Harrison County,

Mississippi, were genetically distinct

from other populations of gopher frogs

east of the Mobile River drainage in

Alabama. Young analyzed tissue from

gopher frogs across the range of the

species including populations in

Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida,

and North Carolina. Although

Mississippi gopher frogs showed a fixed

difference at only a single locus (site for

a specific gene on a chromosome) from

all other gopher frogs, this difference is

considered by many taxonomists to be

significant enough to warrant elevation

of the frog to its own species (B. Crother,

Southern Louisiana University, pers.

comm. 1999). No other specific

taxonomic divisions could be

determined among the remaining

populations of gopher frogs sampled.

Since Harrison County is within the

range of the original specimens used to

describe R. sevosa, Young

recommended the resurrection of R.

sevosa as a distinct species. A

manuscript summarizing her findings

has been submitted for publication

(Young and Crother, unpublished

manuscript). If her recommendations

are accepted by the herpetological

scientific community, we will reflect

this taxonomic change in subsequent

publications in the Federal Register.

Researchers have recommended

‘‘Mississippi gopher frog’’ as the

common name for this population

segment to distinguish it from the other

populations of gopher frogs further east

(R. Seigel, pers. comm. 1998).

The Mississippi gopher frog has a

stubby appearance due to its short,

plump body, comparatively large head,

and relatively short legs (Conant and

Collins 1991). The coloration of its back

is dark and varies in individual frogs. It

ranges from an almost uniform black to

a pattern of reddish brown or dark

brown spots on a ground color of gray

or brown (Goin and Netting 1940).

Warts densely cover the back. The belly

is thickly covered with dark spots and

dusky markings from chin to mid-body

(Goin and Netting 1940, Conant and

Collins 1991). Males are distinguished

from females by their smaller size,

enlarged thumbs, and paired vocal sacs

on either side of the throat (Godley

1992). Richter and Seigel (1998b)

reported a mean snout-vent length of

67.7 millimeters (mm) (2.7 inches (in))

for males and 79.3 mm (3.2 in) for

females in the extant population.

Mississippi gopher frog tadpoles are

presently indistinguishable from those

of leopard frogs and other gopher frogs

33284 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(R. Altig, Mississippi State University,

pers. comm. 1999).

Mississippi gopher frog habitat

includes both upland sandy habitats

historically forested with longleaf pine

and isolated temporary wetland

breeding sites embedded within the

forested landscape. Frequent fires are

necessary to maintain the open canopy

and ground cover vegetation of their

aquatic and terrestrial habitat.

Adult and subadult Mississippi

gopher frogs spend the majority of their

lives underground. They use active and

abandoned gopher tortoise (Gopherus

polyphemus) burrows, abandoned

mammal burrows, and holes in and

under old stumps as refugia (Allen

1932; LaClaire, pers. obs. 1996; Richter

and Seigel 1998a). Gopher tortoise

burrows likely represent preferred

underground habitats. In Florida,

Godley (1992) reported that the closely

related Florida gopher frog was known

only from sites that supported gopher

tortoises. The remaining Mississippi

gopher frog population occurs in an area

presently lacking gopher tortoises, most

likely as a result of habitat degradation.

An abandoned tortoise burrow occurs

approximately 0.8 kilometers (km) (0.5

miles (mi)) from the breeding pond, and

an active burrow was found within 1.6

km (1 mi) of the site in 1992 (T. Mann,

Mississippi Department of Wildlife,

Fisheries and Parks, pers. comm. 1999).

Gopher frog breeding sites are isolated

ponds (not connected to any other water

body) that dry completely on a cyclic

basis. Substantial winter rains are

needed to ensure that ponds are filled

sufficiently to allow hatching,

development, and metamorphosis of

larvae. The timing and frequency of

rainfall are critical to the successful

reproduction and recruitment of

Mississippi gopher frogs.

Today, only a single breeding pond is

known for the Mississippi gopher frog.

It is located in Harrison County,

Mississippi. Adult frogs move to this

wetland breeding site during heavy rain

events, usually from January to late

March (Richter and Seigel 1998b). The

breeding pond is approximately 1.5

hectares (3.8 acres) when filled. It

attains a maximum depth of 1.1 m (3.6

ft). The pond is hard-bottomed, has an

open canopy, and contains emergent

and submergent vegetation. Female

Mississippi gopher frogs attach their

eggs to the rigid vertical stems of

emergent vegetation (Young 1997,

Richter and Seigel 1998a, 1998b). The

pond typically dries in early to midsummer, but on occasion has remained

wet until early fall (G. Johnson, U.S.

Forest Service, pers. comm. 1993;

Young 1997; Richter and Seigel 1998b).

As many as 20 amphibian species (18

frogs and 2 salamanders) are known to

breed at the site (G. Johnson, pers.

comm. 1993). Bailey (1990) and Palis

(1998) found similar habitat attributes in

breeding ponds of the closely related

gopher frogs in Alabama and Florida.

Adult Mississippi gopher frogs leave

the pond site after breeding during

major rainfall events. Adults of both

sexes use specific migratory corridors

when exiting the breeding pond (Richter

and Seigel 1998b). Movements away

from the pond are slightly east of due

north. Young (1997) and Richter and

Seigel (1998a) tracked a total of 13 frogs

using radio transmitters. The farthest

movement recorded was 268 m (879 ft)

by a frog tracked for 88 days from its

exit of the breeding site. In Florida,

gopher frogs have been found 2 km (1.2

mi) from their breeding sites (Carr 1940,

Franz et al. 1988). It is unclear if the

distances recorded for the Mississippi

gopher frogs were typical; the tracking

periods represented only a fraction of

their yearly life cycle. Movements

corresponded with major rain events.

However, dry conditions prevailed

during most of the two study periods. In

fact, the frogs in Richter and Seigel’s

study moved during only one 24-hour

period, which was associated with a

weather event. Another compounding

factor was the clearcut timber harvest in

1994 of a site adjacent to the breeding

pond. Migratory corridors and available

habitat were eliminated by the forestry

operation. In 1996, two frogs were

tracked to the property line delineating

the clearcut, and they did not move

from their burrows during the

remainder of the study (Richter and

Seigel 1997).

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).

Since they 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.

It is likely that, given appropriate

habitat, Mississippi gopher frogs are

long-lived. The longevity record for a

captive close relative, the Carolina

gopher frog (R. capito capito), is 9 years,

1 month (Snider and Bowler 1992).

However, overall low rates of recapture

at the extant breeding pond suggest low

adult survival in the Mississippi gopher

frog population (Richter and Seigel

1998b).

Historical records for the Mississippi

gopher frog exist for two or possibly

three parishes in Louisiana, six counties

in Mississippi, and one county in

Alabama. Researchers conducting

numerous surveys have been unable to

document the continuing existence of

the Mississippi gopher frog in Louisiana

(Seigel and Doody 1992, Thomas 1996)

or in Alabama (Bailey 1992, 1994). The

last observation of a gopher frog in

Louisiana was in 1967 (Gary Lester,

Louisiana Natural Heritage Program,

pers. comm. 1991). In Alabama, it was

last seen in 1922 (Bailey 1994).

Historical records for the Mississippi

gopher frog are limited. We have

compiled 35 historical records—1 in

Alabama, 14 in Louisiana, and 20 in

Mississippi. Historical records are

defined as those localities where gopher

frogs were found prior to 1990. No new

localities for the frog have been found

since 1988. Localities are sites identified

from specimens captured or heard

calling during sampling of potential

breeding sites or by surveying highway

crossings when individuals were on

their way to or from breeding sites. Of

the 35 historical records, 24 provided

data that could be used to approximate

the location of the original site.

Habitat degradation is the primary

factor in the loss of gopher frog

populations in Alabama, Louisiana, and

Mississippi. Bailey (1994) visited the

historical Alabama locality in 1993. The

habitat had been developed as a

residential area, and was no longer

suitable for the gopher frog. Seigel and

Doody (1992) and Thomas (1996)

surveyed historical sites in Louisiana

and searched for other potential sites

that might be occupied by gopher frogs.

They also found that longleaf pine

forests had been severely degraded. The

historical breeding and upland habitats

had changed as a result of urbanization

and/or conversion of forest to pine

plantation. For example, they found

three historical breeding sites that had

been extensively altered. One had been

made a permanent pond in a residential

backyard. Two other ponds had been

extensively altered by bedding, clearing,

and nutrient loading during conversion

of the surrounding habitat to pine

plantation. Both Seigel and Doody

(1992) and Thomas (1996) were

unsuccessful at finding any Mississippi

gopher frogs in Louisiana.

Crawford (1988) surveyed 42 ponds in

6 Mississippi counties in 1987 and

1988. He attempted to relocate all of the

State’s historical localities for the

gopher frog. He found that habitat in the

vicinity of historical localities had been

altered by conversion of natural forest to

agriculture and pine plantations.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33285

Urbanization was a factor in the loss of

at least three breeding ponds. The

character of relocated historical

breeding ponds had been changed from

open-canopy, temporary ponds with

clear water and hard bottoms to muddy,

more permanent ponds with a closed

canopy (G. Johnson, pers. comm. 1999).

No appropriate habitat for the

Mississippi gopher frog could be found

near any of the localities (G. Johnson,

pers. comm. 1999). Crawford (1988) also

used aerial maps to identify potential

breeding sites. In many cases, ponds

identified on these maps no longer

existed due to land use changes.

However, he was able to verify the

presence of the species at four new sites

in Harrison County, Mississippi. At

three of these four sites, only one

individual was observed. Kuss (1988)

surveyed 60 ponds in southern

Mississippi for the flatwoods

salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum).

He did not encounter any gopher frogs

during the surveys. Subsequent to these

studies, surveys have documented the

continued existence of only one

population in Mississippi. This

population breeds at a pond located in

the DeSoto National Forest in Harrison

County. Surveyors working in

Mississippi during the 1990s have been

unable to find the species at any other

sites (R. Jones, Mississippi Department

of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, pers.

comm. 1998; G. Johnson, pers. comm.

1999). Although Allen (1932) found

gopher frogs to be common in the

coastal counties of Mississippi earlier in

the century, today R. Seigel (pers.

comm. 1998) estimates the extant

Mississippi gopher frog population to be

only 100 adult frogs at a single site.

The extensive habitat alteration found

during surveys of historical gopher frog

localities in Alabama, Louisiana, and

Mississippi resulted from the loss of

virtually all of the natural longleaf pine

forest in these States. Presettlement

longleaf pine forests were the dominant

forest type of the southeastern coastal

plain. Today, less than 2 percent of

these forests remain (Ware et al. 1993).

Second growth longleaf pine forests in

the vicinity of historical Mississippi

gopher frog breeding sites were clearcut

extensively in the mid-1950s and then

again in the 1980s and 1990s. Longleaf

pine forest habitat was replaced with

dense pine plantations, agriculture, and

urban areas. Habitat degradation has

occurred as a result of alterations in the

soil horizon (layering of different soil

types), forest litter, herbaceous

community, and occurrence of downed

trees and stumps that Mississippi

gopher frogs use as refugia. Fire

suppression has further degraded the

habitat. The hydrology of many isolated

temporary wetlands, required as

breeding sites for the Mississippi gopher

frog, has been altered. In addition, these

same factors have resulted in the

decline of the gopher tortoise, whose

burrows are most likely the preferred

habitat for adult gopher frogs. As a

result of these habitat changes, both the

uplands and the pond basins previously

occupied by the Mississippi gopher frog

have become unsuitable.

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment

Recent genetic analysis suggested

reevaluation of the taxonomy of gopher

frogs (Rana capito) is necessary (Young

1997). The analysis of the relationships

between gopher frogs and crayfish frogs,

and among subspecies of gopher frogs,

failed to support the current taxonomy

for gopher frogs at the subspecific level.

However, the research did support

taxonomic distinction of the Mississippi

gopher frog from all other gopher frogs

east of the Mobile River delta, including

other dusky gopher frogs. Young and

Crother (unpublished manuscript)

concluded that the Mississippi gopher

frog population segment should be

resurrected to species status.

The biological evidence supports

recognition of the Mississippi gopher

frog as a distinct vertebrate population

segment for purposes of listing, as

defined in our February 7, 1996, Policy

Regarding the Recognition of Distinct

Vertebrate Population Segments (61 FR

4722). The definition of ‘‘species’’ in

section 3(16) of the Act includes ‘‘any

distinct population segment of any

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife

which interbreeds when mature.’’ For a

population to be listed under the Act as

a distinct vertebrate population

segment, three elements are

considered—(1) the discreteness of the

population segment in relation to the

remainder of the species to which it

belongs; (2) the significance of the

population segment to the species to

which it belongs; and (3) the population

segment’s conservation status in relation

to the Act’s standards for listing (i.e., is

the population segment endangered or

threatened?).

Habitat of the lower Gulf Coastal Plain

from the Mississippi River to the Mobile

River delta contains the westernmost

subpopulation of dusky gopher frogs.

This population segment is discrete

because it is geographically segregated

from other gopher frogs by a large gap

(approximately 200 km (125 mi)) of

unoccupied habitat and the Mobile

River delta. Consequently, this

subpopulation does not mix with other

dusky gopher frogs.

Young (1997) presented evidence that

the Mississippi gopher frog distinct

population segment is biologically and

ecologically significant due to genetic

characteristics different from the species

as a whole (see discussion in

Background section). The habitat

occupied by the Mississippi gopher frog

is disjunct from habitat occupied by

other populations of the dusky gopher

frog. No other populations of gopher

frogs remain in Louisiana, Mississippi,

or Alabama west of the Mobile River

drainage. As a result, loss of the

Mississippi gopher frog population

segment would result in a substantial

modification of the species’ range.

Previous Federal Action

In our December 30, 1982, Notice of

Review, we designated the dusky

gopher frog (designation Rana areolata

sevosa) as a category 2 candidate and

solicited status information (47 FR

58454). Category 2 candidates were

those taxa for which we had information

indicating that proposing to list as

endangered or threatened was possibly

appropriate, but for which sufficient

data on biological vulnerability and

threats were not currently available to

support a proposed rule. Category 1 taxa

were those taxa for which we had

sufficient information on biological

vulnerability and threats on file to

support issuance of proposed listing

rules. In our September 18, 1985 (50 FR

37958), and January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554),

Notices of Review, we retained the

dusky gopher frog in category 2. We

identified the dusky gopher frog as a

category 1 candidate species in our

November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804), and

November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982),

Notices of Review. Beginning with our

February 28, 1996, Notice of Review (61

FR 235), we discontinued the

designation of multiple categories of

candidates, and we now consider only

taxa that meet the definition of former

category 1 taxa as candidates for listing.

We also removed Rana areolata sevosa

from candidate status based on the need

for additional information to support a

listing proposal. We have recently

completed an analysis of newly

available information from current

studies and determined that listing the

Mississippi gopher frog distinct

population segment of the dusky gopher

frog is warranted. We elevated the

Mississippi gopher frog to candidate

status in our October 25, 1999, Notice of

Review (64 FR 57534).

The processing of this proposed rule

conforms with our Listing Priority

Guidance published in the Federal

Register on October 22, 1999 (64 FR

57114). The guidance clarifies the order

33286 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules

in which we will process rulemakings.

Highest priority is processing

emergency listing rules for any species

determined to face a significant and

imminent risk to its well-being (Priority

1). Second priority (Priority 2) is

processing final determinations on

proposed additions to the lists of

endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants. Third priority is processing new

proposals to add species to the lists. The

processing of administrative petition

findings (petitions filed under section 4

of the Act) is the fourth priority. The

processing of critical habitat

determinations (prudency and

determinability decisions) and proposed

or final designations of critical habitat

will no longer be subject to

prioritization under the Listing Priority

Guidance. This proposed rule is a

Priority 3 action and is being completed

in accordance with the current Listing

Priority Guidance.

Summary of Factors Affecting the

Species

Section 4 of the Act and regulations

(50 CFR part 424) issued to implement

the listing provisions of the Act set forth

the procedures for adding species to the

Federal lists. We may determine a

species to be an endangered or

threatened species due to one or more

of the five factors described in section

4(a)(1). These factors and their

application to the Mississippi gopher

frog distinct population segment (Rana

capito sevosa) are as follows:

A. The Present or Threatened

Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range

The range of the Mississippi gopher

frog has been reduced as a result of

habitat destruction and modification

(see ‘‘Background’’ section).

Historically, the Mississippi gopher frog

occurred in at least nine counties or

parishes in the States of Alabama,

Mississippi, and Louisiana. Today, it is

known from only one site in Harrison

County, Mississippi.

The Mississippi Gulf Coast has

experienced a recent increase in

residential development. The land 200

m (656 ft) immediately north of the only

known Mississippi gopher frog breeding

site is slated for development, including

a 20,000-unit retirement community, a

sewage treatment plant, and several golf

courses (L. Lewis, Brown and Mitchell,

Inc., pers. comm. 1999). The sewage

treatment plant and one golf course are

currently planned immediately north of

the gopher frog pond. Richter and Seigel

(1998b) reported that the majority of

gopher frogs leaving the breeding pond

moved in the general direction of the

development site. Two frogs, tracked

using transmitters, were observed at the

fence line delineating the DeSoto

National Forest property boundary from

the lands currently slated for

development (Richter and Seigel 1998a).

It seems likely that Mississippi gopher

frogs occupy, or in the very recent past

have occupied, this site. Residential

development of the site would likely

destroy its suitability for the frog.

Due to the close proximity of this

development to the Mississippi gopher

frog pond, a number of indirect impacts

are possible. The most severe is the

potential alteration of hydrology

(physical factors that influence the

movement of water into and out of a

wetland) in the local region. The

breeding pond of the Mississippi gopher

frog must maintain its isolation and

cycle of filling and drying, or it will no

longer be suitable habitat. Wetland

dredging and filling will be required in

order to site houses and build the golf

course and sewage treatment plant. The

consequences of these proposed

hydrological alterations cannot be

estimated without further study.

However, the only known breeding

pond for the Mississippi gopher frog

would undoubtedly be affected in some

way (W. Oakley, U.S. Geological Survey,

pers. comm. 1999).

A number of scenarios are possible

due to the proximity of a proposed

regional sewage treatment plant within

1.6 km (1 mi) of the Mississippi gopher

frog pond. If sewage lagoons are used,

it is possible they could overflow and

flood gopher frog habitat. Such

conditions of high water periodically

result from the tropical storms that

occur along the Mississippi Gulf Coast.

Another potential effect is the lowering

or raising of the groundwater table.

Changes in the water table will alter the

hydroperiod of the Mississippi gopher

frog breeding pond and reduce its

habitat suitability.

A dam has been proposed for the

Biloxi River within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the

Mississippi gopher frog pond. The

reservoir plan involves a dam on the

Biloxi River that would flood

approximately 567 hectares (1,400

acres), primarily within the boundaries

of the DeSoto National Forest (Sun

Herald, Gulfport, Mississippi, May 4,

1999). The impoundment created by

this dam would likely alter the

temporary nature of the breeding site

and flood occupied upland habitat used

by adult frogs and/or potentially

unoccupied upland habitat.

The highway expansion, both ongoing

and planned, in the vicinity of the

existing Mississippi gopher frog pond

will fragment the available longleaf pine

habitat (see Factor E). Urbanization will

expand along these highway corridors

and further reduce available habitat for

the frog. Highway construction may also

alter the existing hydrology of the area

through creation of drainage ditches,

filling of wetlands, and sedimentation.

The remaining breeding pond for the

Mississippi gopher frog is located in the

DeSoto National Forest. Silviculture,

including timber sales with associated

clearcutting, is currently the primary

activity in this area. Inappropriate

timber management could alter the

suitability of the Mississippi gopher

frog’s remaining habitat (see

‘‘Background’’ section). In 1994, habitat

on private land 200 m (656 ft) north of

the breeding pond, now slated for

residential development, was clearcut.

The behavior of two Mississippi gopher

frogs tracked from their breeding site

may be indicative of the negative effects

of clearcutting. The two frogs were

followed to a burrow at the boundary of

the clearcut (Richter and Seigel 1998a).

They never left this location during the

life of the transmitters. The burrow and

stump holes used by migrating frogs on

the clearcut site were likely altered. In

addition, the site had no overstory and

would represent a desert to moisturerequiring frogs. Although the effects of

the clearcut on the population are

unknown, it appears likely that, at least

temporarily, the habitat was unsuitable

for the frogs.

Historical gopher frog breeding sites

have been degraded by roads that pass

through or are adjacent to ponds.

Erosion of unpaved roads adjacent to

breeding sites may result in an influx of

sediment from surrounding uplands

during rainstorms. The hydroperiod

(period during which a wetland holds

water) at the Mississippi gopher frog

breeding site has been negatively

affected by a poorly maintained logging

road that runs within 20 m (66 ft) of the

pond (R. Seigel, pers. comm. 1998).

The open canopy and flat, unforested

bottom of the Mississippi gopher frog

breeding pond represent an alluring site

for dumping unwanted trash and riding

off-road vehicles (ORV). Many

temporary ponds throughout the

southeast have been degraded as a result

of garbage dumping (LaClaire, pers. obs.

1994). ORVs can cause direct mortality

of gopher frog tadpoles and adults (J.

Jensen, Georgia Department of Natural

Resources, pers. comm. 1996) as well as

alter the quality of a breeding site. ORVs

alter the contours of the pond floor,

eliminate herbaceous vegetation, and

can alter the hydrology of the site

(LaClaire, pers. obs. 1995). Loss of

herbaceous vegetation caused by ORVs

could also discourage gopher frog

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33287

reproduction, since egg masses are

attached to stems of herbaceous

vegetation (Young 1997; Richter and

Seigel 1998a, 1998b). ORV tracks have

been documented within the

Mississippi gopher frog breeding site (G.

Johnson, pers. comm. 1994). In 1994, an

area of the DeSoto National Forest

within 2.4 km (1.5 mi) of the existing

breeding pond was temporarily closed

due to accumulation of trash, soil

erosion and water quality degradation

caused by ORVs, damage to endangered

and sensitive plants and animals, and

other vandalism (K. Godwin, U.S. Forest

Service, pers. comm. 1994). ORV use

will likely increase in the vicinity of the

pond if the proposed housing

development occurs adjacent to the site.

B. Overutilization for Commercial,

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational

Purposes

Direct take of Mississippi gopher frogs

for commercial, recreational, scientific,

or educational purposes is not currently

a threat. However, listing the

Mississippi gopher frog may make it

more attractive to collectors through

recognition of its rarity. In addition, the

life history and ecology of Mississippi

gopher frogs make them vulnerable to

overcollecting, as well as vandalism.

Only a single breeding pond remains for

this frog. At predictable times of the

year, all breeding adults congregate at

this one site to breed.

C. Disease or Predation

Disease is not known to be a factor in

the decline of the Mississippi gopher

frog. However, predation may be a

threat. Richter and Seigel (1998a)

reported that approximately 44 percent

of all eggs at the existing breeding site

were lost in 1997 prior to hatching. An

undetermined amount of the egg

mortality was due to predation by

caddisfly larvae (Order Trichoptera,

Family Phryganeidae) on the egg

masses. Caddisfly larvae were not

observed on egg masses in the previous

year of the study. The effect on the

Mississippi gopher frog population is

unknown. However, if mortality of this

magnitude is a result of predation, it is

a cause for concern in such an

extremely small and isolated

population.

Predation from fish probably

contributed to the loss of historic

populations. Temporary ponds altered

to form more permanent bodies of water

and stocked with fish are no longer

suitable breeding sites. Fish may have

also entered breeding sites through the

connection of drainage ditches and

firebreaks to pond basins. The

Mississippi gopher frog is adapted to

temporary wetlands, and its larvae

cannot survive the heavy predation of

bass and sunfish commonly used to

stock ponds. One historical location in

Louisiana was destroyed in part because

it has become a permanent pond with

fish (Thomas 1996). In Mississippi, a

calling male was discovered in 1987 at

a site that has since been converted to

a fish pond (T. Mann, pers. comm.

1998). No gopher frogs have been

reported subsequently at this site, which

is no longer considered suitable

breeding habitat.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing

Regulatory Mechanisms

Louisiana has no protective

legislation for the Mississippi gopher

frog. Alabama protects all gopher frogs

as nongame species (J. Woehr, Alabama

Department of Conservation and Natural

Resources, pers. comm. 1994). The

Mississippi gopher frog is listed as

endangered in Mississippi (Mississippi

Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and

Parks 1992), and both Mississippi and

Alabama provide protection against

collecting of the species. However, this

legislation does nothing to alleviate the

habitat loss that has caused the decline

of the species. The only known breeding

site for the Mississippi gopher frog is on

U.S. Forest Service land. As a result,

there has been a concerted effort to

encourage the U.S. Forest Service to

manage the site for the frog. Although

the U.S. Forest Service has an obligation

to ensure their land management

activities protect fish and wildlife

(National Forest Management Act),

forest management is often limited by

existing funding. Other avenues of

funding become available to the U.S.

Forest Service once a species is

federally listed.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors

Affecting Its Continued Existence

Fire is needed to maintain the natural

longleaf pine community. Ecologists

consider fire suppression a primary

reason for the degradation of the

remaining longleaf pine acreage in the

southeast (Noss 1988, Ware et al. 1993).

Fire suppression has reduced the

quality of the terrestrial and aquatic

habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog.

Canopy closure from fire suppression

alters the forest floor vegetation and

threatens the open, herbaceous

character typical of gopher frog breeding

ponds (Kirkman 1995, LaClaire 1995). In

addition, fire causes the release of

nutrients bound in plant material. This

release of nutrients results in a flush of

primary productivity that is important

to the herbivorous gopher frog tadpoles.

Fire suppression has probably

negatively impacted all of the historical

Mississippi gopher frog sites. At this

time, fire is the only known

management tool that will maintain the

existing breeding pond as suitable

habitat.

Between 1991 and 1998, the U.S.

Forest Service conducted periodic

growing-season burns of the forest

compartment surrounding the

Mississippi gopher frog breeding pond.

These burns improved habitat

conditions, but their frequency and

extent have been insufficient. For

example, the interior of the breeding site

has been burned only once since 1991.

This frequency of burning is too low to

prevent woody encroachment and,

therefore, too low to enhance

herbaceous growth. Residential

development and road construction in

the vicinity of the breeding pond will

create increased concerns about, and

likely reduce the use of, fire as a

management tool.

Habitat fragmentation of the longleaf

pine ecosystem, resulting from habitat

conversion, threatens the survival of the

single remaining Mississippi gopher

frog population. Studies have shown

that the loss of small, fragmented

populations is common, and

recolonization is critical for their

regional survival (Fahrig and Merriam

1994, Burkey 1995). As patches of

available habitat become separated

beyond the dispersal range of a species,

populations are more sensitive to

genetic, demographic, and

environmental variability and may be

unable to recover (Gilpin 1987, Sjogren

1991, Blaustein et al. 1994). This

scenario describes threats to the

Mississippi gopher frog. Five historical

Mississippi gopher frog localities exist

within a 19.2-km (12-mi) radius of the

remaining site. Highways have

fragmented this area and contributed to

habitat degradation. The most recent

records of frogs at these locales was in

the late 1980s. The planned

construction of highways within 5 km

(3.1 mi) both to the north and east of the

existing Mississippi gopher frog pond

will further isolate the remaining

population from the two potentially

restorable historical breeding sites in the

DeSoto National Forest. The Biloxi

River and additional residential

development bound the habitat to the

west and south.

Low reproductive potential may also

present a threat to the Mississippi

gopher frog’s continued existence.

Studies at the Mississippi breeding site

suggest that female Mississippi gopher

frogs may not breed until 2 to 3 years

of age and may breed only in alternate

years and/or have only a single lifetime

33288 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules

breeding event (Richter and Seigel

1998b). In addition, survival of juvenile

frogs is thought to be extremely low

(Richter and Seigel 1998b).

Annual variability in rainfall

influences how frequently and how long

a pond is appropriate breeding habitat.

Reliance on specific weather conditions

results in unpredictable breeding events

and reduces the likelihood that

recruitment will occur every year. No

larvae survived to metamorphosis in 3

out of 6 years of the reproductive study

of the extant Mississippi gopher frog

population (summarized in Richter and

Seigel 1998b). In addition, study results

indicate that only 1 year out of 6

resulted in the explosive numbers

(2,488) of juveniles typical of temporary

pond breeding amphibians.

The Mississippi gopher frog

population is highly susceptible to

genetic isolation, inbreeding, and

random demographic events as a result

of having only one known breeding site.

Long-lasting droughts or frequent floods

may negatively affect the population.

Although these are natural processes,

other threats, such as habitat

fragmentation, habitat degradation, and

low reproductive potential, may cause

the population to decline to the point

that it cannot recover.

Pesticides and herbicides pose a

threat to amphibians such as the

Mississippi gopher frog, because their

permeable eggs and skin readily absorb

substances from the surrounding aquatic

or terrestrial environment (Duellman

and Trueb 1986). Aquatic frog larvae are

likely more vulnerable than adults to

chemical changes in their environment.

Negative effects of commonly used

pesticides and herbicides on amphibian

larvae include delayed metamorphosis,

paralysis, reduced growth rates, and

mortality (Bishop 1992, Berrill and

Bertram 1997, Bridges 1999). Adult

gopher frogs are predaceous and could

be affected by pesticides accumulated in

their invertebrate prey. If a golf course

is built in the drainage area of the

Mississippi gopher frog breeding pond,

as proposed, the herbicides and

pesticides used to maintain it would

pose a potential threat to the

population. In addition, runoff from

chemically maintained yards and roads

in the proposed residential development

may contribute toxins that could

threaten the frog. Herbicides may also

alter the density and species

composition of vegetation surrounding a

breeding site and reduce the number of

potential sites for egg deposition, larval

development, or shelter for migrating

frogs.

We have carefully assessed the best

scientific and commercial information

available regarding the past, present,

and future threats faced by the

Mississippi gopher frog distinct

population segment in determining to

propose this rule. Based on this

evaluation, the preferred action is to list

the Mississippi gopher frog distinct

population segment as endangered. The

Act defines an endangered species as

one that is in danger of extinction

throughout all or a significant portion of

its range. A threatened species is one

that is likely to become an endangered

species in the foreseeable future

throughout all or a significant portion of

its range. As discussed under Factor A,

in spite of extensive surveys throughout

the known range of the Mississippi

gopher frog, only one population is

known to exist. Further, residential

development, new and expanding

highways, increased fire suppression,

and a proposed reservoir pose threats to

the remaining habitat of adult gopher

frogs. For these reasons, we find that the

Mississippi gopher frog distinct

population segment is in danger of

extinction throughout all or a significant

portion of its range and, therefore,

endangered status is appropriate.

Critical Habitat

Critical habitat is defined in section 3

of the Act as: (I) The specific areas

within the geographical area occupied

by a species, at the time it is listed in

accordance with the Act, on which are

found those physical or biological

features (I) essential to the conservation

of the species and (II) that may require

special management considerations or

protection; and (ii) specific areas

outside the geographical area occupied

by a species at the time it is listed, upon

a determination that such areas are

essential for the conservation of the

species. ‘‘Conservation’’ means the use

of all methods and procedures needed

to bring the species to the point at

which listing under the Act is no longer

necessary.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as

amended, and implementing regulations

(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the

maximum extent prudent and

determinable, we designate critical

habitat at the time the species is

determined to be endangered or

threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR

424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of

critical habitat is not prudent when one

or both of the following situations

exist—(I) The species is threatened by

taking or other activity and the

identification of critical habitat can be

expected to increase the degree of threat

to the species or (ii) such designation of

critical habitat would not be beneficial

to the species. We find that designation

of critical habitat is prudent for the

Mississippi gopher frog.

Critical habitat designation, by

definition, directly affects only Federal

agency actions through consultation

under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. Section

7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to

ensure that activities they authorize,

fund, or carry out are not likely to

jeopardize the continued existence of a

listed species or destroy or adversely

modify its critical habitat.

Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as

amended, and implementing regulations

(50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the

maximum extent prudent and

determinable, we designate critical

habitat at the time the species is

determined to be endangered or

threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR

424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of

critical habitat is not prudent when one

or both of the following situations

exist—(1) The species is threatened by

taking or other human activity, and

identification of critical habitat can be

expected to increase the degree of threat

to the species, or (2) such designation of

critical habitat would not be beneficial

to the species.

The Final Listing Priority Guidance

for FY 2000 (64 FR 57114) states, ‘‘The

processing of critical habitat

determinations (prudency and

determinability decisions) and proposed

or final designations of critical habitat

will no longer be subject to

prioritization under the Listing Priority

Guidance. Critical habitat

determinations, which were previously

included in final listing rules published

in the Federal Register, may now be

processed separately, in which case

stand-alone critical habitat

determinations will be published as

notices in the Federal Register. We will

undertake critical habitat

determinations and designations during

FY 2000 as allowed by our funding

allocation for that year.’’ As explained

in detail in the Listing Priority

Guidance, our listing budget is currently

insufficient to allow us to immediately

complete all of the listing actions

required by the Act.

We propose that critical habitat is

prudent for the Mississippi gopher frog.

In the last few years, a series of court

decisions have overturned Service

determinations regarding a variety of

species that designation of critical

habitat would not be prudent (e.g.,

Natural Resources Defense Council v.

U.S. Department of the Interior 113 F.

3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1997); Conservation

Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F. Supp.

2d 1280 (D. Hawaii 1998)). Based on the

standards applied in those judicial

opinions, we believe that designation of

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33289

critical habitat would be prudent for the

Mississippi gopher frog.

Due to the fact that the Mississippi

gopher frog is only known from one site,

it is vulnerable to unrestricted

collection, vandalism, or other

disturbance. We are concerned that

these threats might be exacerbated by

the publication of critical habitat maps

and further dissemination of locational

information. However, at this time we

do not have specific evidence for the

Mississippi gopher frog of taking,

vandalism, collection, or trade of this

species or any similarly situated

species. Consequently, consistent with

applicable regulations (50 CFR

424.12(a)(1)(I)) and recent case law, we

do not expect that the identification of

critical habitat will further increase the

degree of threat of taking or other

human activity above that of the listing

of the species.

In the absence of a finding that critical

habitat would increase threats to a

species, if there are any benefits to

critical habitat designation, then a

prudent finding is warranted. In the

case of this species, there may be some

benefits to designation of critical

habitat. The primary regulatory effect of

critical habitat is the section 7

requirement that Federal agencies

refrain from taking any action that

destroys or adversely modifies critical

habitat. While a critical habitat

designation for habitat currently

occupied by this species would not be

likely to change the section 7

consultation outcome because an action

that destroys or adversely modifies such

critical habitat would also be likely to

result in jeopardy to the species, there

may be instances where section 7

consultation would be triggered only if

critical habitat is designated. Examples

could include unoccupied habitat or

occupied habitat that may become

unoccupied in the future. There may

also be some educational or

informational benefits to designating

critical habitat. Therefore, we propose

that critical habitat is prudent for the

Mississippi gopher frog. However, the

deferral of the critical habitat

designation for the Mississippi gopher

frog will allow us to concentrate our

limited resources on higher priority

critical habitat and other listing actions,

while allowing us to put in place

protections needed for the conservation

of the Mississippi gopher frog without

further delay. We anticipate in FY 2000

and beyond giving higher priority to

critical habitat designation, including

designations deferred pursuant to the

Listing Priority Guidance, such as the

designation for this species, than we

have in recent fiscal years.

We plan to employ a priority system

for deciding which outstanding critical

habitat designations should be

addressed first. We will focus our efforts

on those designations that will provide

the most conservation benefit, taking

into consideration the efficacy of critical

habitat designation in addressing the

threats to the species, and the

magnitude and immediacy of those

threats. We will make the final critical

habitat determination with the final

listing determination for the Mississippi

gopher frog. If this final critical habitat

determination is that critical habitat is

prudent, we will develop a proposal to

designate critical habitat for the

Mississippi gopher frog as soon as

feasible, considering our workload

priorities.

Available Conservation Measures

Conservation measures provided to

species listed as endangered or

threatened under the Act include

recognition, recovery actions,

requirements for Federal protection, and

prohibitions against certain activities.

Recognition through listing results in

public awareness and conservation

actions by Federal, State, and local

agencies, private organizations, and

individuals. The Act provides for

possible land acquisition and

cooperation with the States and requires

that recovery actions be carried out for

all listed species. The protection

required of Federal agencies and the

prohibitions against taking and harm are

discussed, in part, below.

Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended,

requires Federal agencies to evaluate

their actions with respect to any species

that is listed as endangered or

threatened and with respect to its

critical habitat, if any is designated.

Regulations implementing this

interagency cooperation provision of the

Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.

Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies

to confer informally with us on any

action that is likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of a species

proposed for listing or result in

destruction or adverse modification of

proposed critical habitat. If a species is

subsequently listed, section 7(a)(2)

requires Federal agencies to ensure that

activities they authorize, fund, or carry

out are not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of the species or

destroy or adversely modify its critical

habitat. If a Federal action may affect a

listed species or its critical habitat, the

responsible Federal agency must enter

into formal consultation with us.

The Mississippi gopher frog occurs in

the DeSoto National Forest, Federal land

administered by the U.S. Forest Service.

The U.S. Forest Service will be required

to evaluate whether their activities have

the potential to adversely impact the

Mississippi gopher frog. Their activities

that could adversely modify suitable

habitat include, but are not limited to,

forest management and road

construction. Other Federal agencies

that may be involved in authorizing,

funding, or carrying out activities that

may affect the Mississippi gopher frog

include the Army Corps of Engineers,

due to their regulation of discharges of

dredged or fill material into isolated

wetlands under section 404 of the Clean

Water Act (CWA), nationwide permit 26

and dam construction in navigable

waters under section 10 of the Rivers

and Harbors Act and 404 of the CWA;

the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, due to their oversight of

gas pipeline and powerline rights-ofway; and the Federal Highway

Administration, if Federal funds are

involved in road construction.

We have been working with the U.S.

Forest Service since 1988 to protect the

last remaining population of the

Mississippi gopher frog. We have

advised the U.S. Forest Service on

protection and management needs for

this species. We have supported

research on the ecology and life history

of this population by projects funded

through our cooperative agreement with

the State of Mississippi under section 6

of the Act. In addition, we have

collaborated with the U.S. Forest

Service on the rehabilitation of a nearby

pond as a future breeding site for the

frog.

The Act and its implementing

regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set

forth a series of general prohibitions and

exceptions that apply to all endangered

wildlife. These prohibitions, in part,

make it illegal for any person subject to

the jurisdiction of the United States to

take (includes harass, harm, pursue,

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,

or collect; or to attempt any of these),

import, export, ship in interstate

commerce in the course of commercial

activity, or sell or offer for sale in

interstate or foreign commerce any

endangered wildlife species. It is also

illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,

transport, or ship any such wildlife that

has been taken illegally. Certain

exceptions apply to our agents and

agents of State conservation agencies.

It is our policy, published in the

Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR

34272), to identify, to the maximum

extent practicable at the time a species

is listed, those activities that are or are

not likely to constitute a violation of

section 9 of the Act. The intent of this

policy is to increase public awareness of

33290 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules

the effects of the listing on proposed

and ongoing activities within a species’

range.

We believe the following activities are

unlikely to result in a violation of

section 9 for the Mississippi gopher

frog:

(1) Possession of legally acquired

Mississippi gopher frogs;

(2) Lawful hunting activities;

(3) Lawful burning of habitat where

the Mississippi gopher frog is known to

occur, including winter burning;

(4) Federally approved projects that

involve activities such as discharge of

fill material, draining, ditching,

bedding, diversion or alteration of

surface or ground water flow into or out

of a wetland (i.e., due to roads,

impoundments, discharge pipes, etc.),

when the activity is conducted in

accordance with any reasonable and

prudent measures given by us in

accordance with section 7 of the Act;

and,

(5) Conversion of longleaf pine habitat

where the Mississippi gopher frog does

not occur.

We believe the following activities

could potentially result in ‘‘take’’ of the

Mississippi gopher frog:

(1) Unauthorized killing, collecting,

handling, or harassing of individual

Mississippi gopher frogs; this would

include unauthorized use of off-road

vehicles in the wetland basins of known

breeding sites of the species.

(2) Possessing, selling, transporting, or

shipping illegally taken Mississippi

gopher frogs;

(3) Unauthorized destruction or

alteration of the hydrology of the frog’s

wetland breeding sites. These actions

would include off-site activities that

alter the regional hydrology by changing

the natural recharge to the belowground aquifer, altering the groundwater

table, or altering flows in stream

drainages, which would impact the

appropriate temporal fluctuations and/

or water-holding capacity at existing

breeding sites. Unauthorized actions

that could alter the hydrology of

breeding sites would include discharge

of fill material, draining, ditching,

bedding, clear-cutting within the

wetland, diversion or alteration of

surface or ground water flow into or out

of a wetland (i.e., due to roads,

impoundments, discharge pipes, etc.),

and operation of any vehicles within the

wetland; and,

(4) Discharge or dumping of toxic

chemicals, silt, or other pollutants (i.e.,

sewage, oil, pesticides, and gasoline)

into isolated wetlands or upland

habitats supporting the species. This

includes any application of terrestrial or

aquatic pesticide that results in the

mortality of adult frogs or tadpoles,

regardless if the pesticide was applied

in accordance with the labeling

instructions. This includes drift from

aerial applications and runoff from

surface applications.

We will review other activities not

identified above on a case-by-case basis

to determine whether they may be likely

to result in a violation of section 9 of the

Act. We do not consider these lists to be

exhaustive and provide them as

information to the public. You should

direct questions regarding whether

specific activities may constitute a

violation of section 9 to the Field

Supervisor of our Mississippi Field

Office (see ADDRESSES section).

We may issue permits to carry out

otherwise prohibited activities

involving endangered wildlife species

under certain circumstances.

Regulations governing permits are at 50

CFR 17.22. For endangered species, you

may obtain permits for scientific

purposes, to enhance the propagation or

survival of the species, and/or for

incidental take in connection with

otherwise lawful activities. You may

request copies of the regulations

regarding listed wildlife from, and

address questions about prohibitions

and permits to, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Blvd.,

Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345, or

telephone 404/679–7313; facsimile 404/

679–7081.

Public Comments Solicited

We intend that any final action

resulting from this proposal will be as

accurate and as effective as possible.

Therefore, we request comments or

suggestions from the public, other

concerned governmental agencies, the

scientific community, industry, or any

other interested party concerning this

proposed rule. Our practice is to make

comments, including names and home

addresses of respondents, available for

public review during regular business

hours. Individual respondents may

request that we withhold their home

address from the rulemaking record,

which we will honor to the extent

allowable by law. There also may be

circumstances in which we would

withhold from the rulemaking record a

respondent’s identity, as allowable by

law. If you wish us to withhold your

name and/or address, you must state

this prominently at the beginning of

your comment. However, we will not

consider anonymous comments. We

will make all submissions from

organizations or businesses, and from

individuals identifying themselves as

representatives or officials of

organizations or businesses, available

for public inspection in their entirety.

We particularly seek comments

concerning:

(1) Biological, commercial trade, or

other relevant data concerning any

threat (or lack thereof) to this distinct

population segment;

(2) The location of any additional

populations of this distinct population

segment;

(3) The reasons why any habitat

should or should not be determined to

be critical habitat as provided by section

4 of the Act;

(4) Additional information concerning

the range, distribution, and size of this

distinct population segment; and

(5) Current or planned activities in the

subject area and their possible impacts

on this distinct population segment.

We will take into consideration your

comments and any additional

information received on this distinct

population segment when making a

final determination regarding this

proposal. We will also submit the

available scientific data and information

to appropriate, independent specialists

for review. We will summarize the

opinions of these reviewers in the final

decision document. The final

determination may differ from this

proposal based upon the information we

receive.

You may request a public hearing on

this proposal. Your request for a hearing

must be made in writing and filed

within 45 days of the date of publication

of this proposal in the Federal Register.

Address your request to the Field

Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).

National Environmental Policy Act

We have determined that we do not

need to prepare an Environmental

Assessment, as defined under the

authority of the National Environmental

Policy Act of 1969, in connection with

regulations adopted pursuant to section

4(a) of the Act. We published a notice

outlining our reasons for this

determination in the Federal Register

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain any new

collections of information other than

those already approved under the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq., and assigned Office of

Management and Budget clearance

1018–0094. 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 control number. For

additional information concerning

permit and associated requirements for

endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.22.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 100 / Tuesday, May 23, 2000 / Proposed Rules 33291

References Cited

You may request a list of all

references cited in this document, as

well as others, from the Mississippi

Field Office (see ADDRESSES section).

Author. The primary author of this

proposed rule is Linda V. LaClaire,

Mississippi Field Office (see ADDRESSES

section) (601/965–4900).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

as follows:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.

2. In § 17.11(h) add the following, in

alphabetical order under AMPHIBIANS,

to the List of Endangered and

Threatened Wildlife:

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

AMPHIBIANS

*******

Frog, Mississippi gopher.Rana capito sevosa U.S.A.(AL, FL, LA,

MS).

Wherever found

west of Mobile

and Tombigbee

Rivers in AL, MS,

and LA.

E .................... NA NA

*******

Dated: April 6, 2000.

Jamie Rappaport Clark,

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 00–12796 Filed 5–22–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U