[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 106 (Thursday, June 3, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31387-31411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13359]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS- R4-ES-2010-0024];
[MO 92210-0-0009-B4]
RIN 1018-AX25


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to designate 
critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog (Rana sevosa) [= Rana 
capito sevosa] under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). A total of 792 hectares (1,957 acres) in 11 units are proposed 
for critical habitat designation. The proposed critical habitat is 
located within Forrest, Harrison, Jackson, and Perry Counties, 
Mississippi.

DATES: We will consider comments from all interested parties until 
August 2, 2010. We must receive requests for public hearings, in 
writing, at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section by July 19, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2010-0024.
    <bullet> U.S. mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing, 
Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2010-0024; Division of Policy and Directives 
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see Public Comments section below 
for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office, 6578 
Dogwood

[[Page 31388]]

View Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; telephone: 601-321-1127; facsimile: 
601-965-4340. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf 
(TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-
8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Comments

    We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule 
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and 
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request 
comments or information from governmental agencies, the scientific 
community, industry, or any other interested party concerning this 
proposed rule. We particularly seek comments concerning:
    (1) The reasons why we should or should not designate habitat as 
``critical habitat'' under section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.), including whether there are threats to the species from human 
activity, the degree of which can be expected to increase due to the 
designation, and whether the benefit of designation would be outweighed 
by threats to the species caused by the designation, such that the 
designation of critical habitat is not prudent.
    (2) Comments or information that may assist us in identifying or 
clarifying the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Mississippi gopher frog.
    (3) Specific information on:
<bullet> The amount and distribution of Mississippi gopher frog 
habitat,
<bullet> What areas occupied at the time of listing and that contain 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species,
<bullet> What special management considerations or protections may 
these features require, and
<bullet> What areas not occupied at the time of listing are essential 
for the conservation of the species and why.
    (4) Land-use designations and current or planned activities in the 
subject areas and their possible impacts on proposed critical habitat.
    (5) Any probable economic, national security, or other relevant 
impacts of designating any area that may be included in the final 
designation. We are particularly interested in any impacts on small 
entities (e.g., small businesses or small governments) or families, and 
the benefits of including or excluding areas that exhibit these 
impacts.
    (6) Whether any specific areas we are proposing as critical habitat 
should be considered for exclusion under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, 
and whether the benefits of potentially excluding any specific area 
outweigh the benefits of including that area under section 4(b)(2) of 
the Act.
    (7) Information on any quantifiable economic costs or benefits of 
the proposed designation of critical habitat.
    (8) Information on the projected and reasonably likely impacts of 
climate change on the Mississippi gopher frog, and any special 
management needs or protections that may be needed in the critical 
habitat areas we are proposing.
    (9) Whether we could improve or modify our approach to designating 
critical habitat in any way to provide for greater public participation 
and understanding, or to better accommodate public concerns and 
comments.
    (10) The appropriateness of the taxonomic name change of the 
Mississippi gopher frog from Rana capito sevosa to Rana sevosa.
    You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed 
rule by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not 
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in 
the ADDRESSES section.
    We will post your entire comment--including your personal 
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If your written 
comments provide personal identifying information, you may request at 
the top of your document that we withhold this information from public 
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
    Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting 
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be 
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by 
appointment, during normal business hours, at the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).

Background

    It is our intent to discuss only those topics directly relevant to 
the designation of critical habitat in this proposed rule. For more 
information on the Mississippi gopher frog, refer to the final rule 
listing the species as endangered, which was published in the Federal 
Register on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62993). See also the discussion of 
habitat in the Physical and Biological Features section below.
Taxonomy and Nomenclature
    Subsequent to the listing of the Mississippi gopher frog, taxonomic 
research was completed which indicated that the listed entity is 
different from other gopher frogs and warrants acceptance as its own 
species, Rana sevosa (Young and Crother 2001, pp. 382-388). The 
herpetological scientific community has accepted this taxonomic change, 
and, as a result, we announce our intention to revise our List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to reflect this change in 
nomenclature. The common name for Rana sevosa used in the most recent 
taxonomic treatment for reptiles and amphibians is dusky gopher frog 
(Crother et al. 2003, p. 197). However, we will continue to use the 
common name, Mississippi gopher frog, to describe the listed entity in 
order to avoid confusion with some populations of the eastern Rana 
capito, for which the common name of dusky gopher frog is still 
popularly used.
    The subspecies, dusky gopher frog (Rana capito sevosa), originally 
described those gopher frogs occurring in western Florida, Alabama, 
Mississippi, and Louisiana. The listing at 50 CFR 17.11 is of a 
distinct population segment (DPS) representing those dusky gopher frogs 
occurring west of the Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers in Alabama, 
Mississippi, and Louisiana. As discussed above, taxonomic research has 
elevated the dusky gopher frog to full species status. Therefore, while 
we are proposing a change to the listing in 50 CFR 17.11(h) to update 
the species name to Rana sevosa, the listed entity actually would not 
change; the same frogs would retain protection under the Act as an 
endangered species. We also propose to remove the State of Florida from 
the ``Historical range'' column of the table entry in 50 CFR 17.11(h) 
since this delineated the entire range, including unlisted portions, of 
the subspecies, Rana capito sevosa. The historic range column of the 
table entry in 50 CFR 17.11 (h) has been changed to reflect the 
historic range of the listed entity, Rana sevosa. As a result of the 
name change, the species occupying the eastern portion of the range 
that includes the State of Florida is the unlisted Rana capito.
Geographic Range, Habitat, and Threats
    The Mississippi gopher frog has a very limited historical range in 
Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. At the time of listing in 2001, 
this species occurred at only one site, Glen's Pond, in the DeSoto 
National Forest in Harrison County, Mississippi (66 FR 62993). 
Mississippi gopher frog habitat includes both upland sandy habitats--
historically forest dominated by longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) --and 
isolated temporary wetland breeding sites

[[Page 31389]]

embedded within the forested landscape. Adult and subadult frogs spend 
the majority of their lives underground in active and abandoned gopher 
tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) burrows, abandoned mammal burrows, and 
holes in and under old stumps (Richter et al. 2001, p. 318). Frequent 
fires are necessary to maintain the open canopy and ground cover 
vegetation of their aquatic and terrestrial habitat. The Mississippi 
gopher frog was listed as an endangered species due to its low 
population size and because of ongoing threats to the species and its 
habitat (66 FR 62993). Primary threats to the species include 
urbanization and associated development and road building; fire 
suppression; two potentially fatal amphibian diseases known to be 
present in the population; and the demographic effects of small 
population size (66 FR 62993; Sisson 2003, pp. 5, 9; Overstreet and 
Lotz 2004, pp. 1-13).
Current Status
    Since the time of listing on December 4, 2001, we have used 
information from surveys and reports prepared by the Alabama Department 
of Conservation and Natural Resources; Louisiana Department of Wildlife 
and Fisheries/Natural Heritage Program; Mississippi Museum of Natural 
Science/Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks; 
Mississippi gopher frog researchers; and Service data and records to 
search for additional locations occupied, or with the potential to be 
occupied, by the Mississippi gopher frog. After reviewing the available 
information from the areas in the three States that were historically 
occupied by the Mississippi gopher frog, we determined that most of the 
potential restorable habitat for the species occurred in Mississippi. 
Wetlands throughout the coastal counties of Mississippi have been 
identified by using U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, National 
Wetland Inventory maps, Natural Resource Conservation Service county 
soil survey maps, and satellite imagery. Although historically the 
Mississippi gopher frog was commonly found in the coastal counties of 
Mississippi (Allen 1932, p. 9; Neill 1957, p. 49), very few of the 
remaining ponds provide potential appropriate breeding habitat (Sisson 
2003, p. 6). Field surveys conducted in Alabama and Louisiana have been 
unsuccessful in documenting the continued existence of Mississippi 
gopher frogs in these States (Pechmann et al. 2006, pp. 1-23; Bailey 
2009, pp. 1-2). However, two new naturally occurring populations of the 
Mississippi gopher frog were found in Jackson County, Mississippi 
(Sisson 2004, p. 8). Due to the paucity of available suitable habitat 
for the Mississippi gopher frog, we have worked with our State, 
Federal, and nongovernmental partners to identify and restore upland 
and wetland habitats to create appropriate translocation sites for the 
species. We identified 15 ponds and associated forested uplands which 
we considered to have restoration potential. These sites occur on the 
DeSoto National Forest (Harrison, Forrest, and Perry Counties), the 
Ward Bayou Wildlife Management Area (Jackson County), and two privately 
owned sites (Jackson County). We have used Glen's Pond and its 
surrounding uplands on the DeSoto National Forest, Harrison County, 
Mississippi, as a guide in our management efforts. Ongoing habitat 
management is being conducted at these areas to restore them as 
potential relocation sites for the Mississippi gopher frog. Habitat 
management at one of the privately owned sites (Unit 3) reached the 
point where we believed a translocation effort could be initiated. 
Tadpoles and metamorphic frogs have been released in 2004, 2005, 2007, 
and 2008, at a pond restored for use as a breeding site (Sisson et al. 
2008, p. 16). In December 2007, Mississippi gopher frogs were heard 
calling at the site, and one egg mass was discovered (Baxley and Qualls 
2007, pp. 14-15). As a result, we consider this site to be currently 
occupied by the species, bringing the total number of currently 
occupied sites to four.
Previous Federal Action
    The Mississippi gopher frog (Rana capito sevosa) distinct 
population segment of the gopher frog (Rana capito) (see Taxonomy and 
Nomenclature discussion above) was listed as an endangered species 
under the Act on December 4, 2001 (66 FR 62993). The Service found that 
designation of critical habitat was prudent at the time of listing. 
However, the development of a designation was deferred due to budgetary 
and workload constraints.
    On November 27, 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity and 
Friends of Mississippi Public Lands filed a lawsuit against the Service 
and the Secretary of the Interior for our failure to timely designate 
critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog (Friends of 
Mississippi Public Lands and Center for Biological Diversity v. 
Kempthorne (07-CV-02073)). In a court-approved settlement, the Service 
agreed to submit to the Federal Register a new prudency determination, 
and if the designation was found to be prudent, a proposed designation 
of critical habitat, by May 30, 2010, and a final designation by May 
30, 2011.

Critical Habitat

Background
    Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as:
    (1) The specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the 
species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which 
are found those physical or biological features
    (a) Essential to the conservation of the species and
    (b) Which may require special management considerations or 
protection; and
    (2) Specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the 
species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas 
are essential for the conservation of the species.
    Conservation, as defined under section 3 of the Act, means to use 
and the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring 
an endangered or threatened species to the point at which the measures 
provided under the Act are no longer necessary. Such methods and 
procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities associated 
with scientific resources management such as research, census, law 
enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance, propagation, live 
trapping, and transplantation, and, in the extraordinary case where 
population pressures within a given ecosystem cannot be otherwise 
relieved, may include regulated taking.
    Critical habitat receives protection under section 7(a)(2)of the 
Act through the prohibition against Federal agencies carrying out, 
funding, or authorizing the destruction or adverse modification of 
critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires consultation on Federal 
actions that may affect critical habitat. The designation of critical 
habitat does not affect land ownership or establish a refuge, 
wilderness, reserve, preserve, or other conservation area. Such 
designation does not allow the government or public to access private 
lands. Such designation does not require implementation of restoration, 
recovery, or enhancement measures by non-Federal landowners. Where a 
landowner seeks or requests Federal agency funding or authorization for 
an action that may affect a listed species or critical habitat, the 
consultation requirements of section 7(a)(2) would apply, but even in 
the event of a destruction or adverse modification

[[Page 31390]]

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.
    To be considered for inclusion in a critical habitat designation, 
the habitat within the geographical area occupied by the species at the 
time it was listed must contain the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species. Areas supporting the 
essential physical or biological features are identified, to the extent 
known using the best scientific data available, as the habitat areas 
that provide essential life cycle needs of the species. Habitat within 
the geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing 
that contains features essential to the conservation of the species 
meets the definition of critical habitat only if these features may 
require special management consideration or protection. Under the Act 
and regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, we can designate critical habitat in 
areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
it is listed only when we determine that the best available scientific 
data demonstrate that those areas are essential for the conservation of 
the species.
    Section 4 of the Act requires that we designate critical habitat on 
the basis of the best scientific data available. Further, our Policy on 
Information Standards Under the Endangered Species Act (published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34271)), the Information 
Quality Act (section 515 of the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Pub. L. 106-554; H.R. 5658)), 
and our associated Information Quality Guidelines, provide criteria, 
establish procedures, and provide guidance to ensure that our decisions 
are based on the best scientific data available. They require our 
biologists, to the extent consistent with the Act and with the use of 
the best scientific data available, to use primary and original sources 
of information as the basis for recommendations to designate critical 
habitat.
    When we are determining 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, or other unpublished materials and 
expert opinion or personal knowledge.
    Habitat is often dynamic, and species may move from one area to 
another over time. In particular, we recognize that climate change may 
cause changes in the suitability of occupied habitat. Climate change 
may lead to increased frequency and duration of severe storms and 
droughts (McLauglin et al. 2002, p. 6074; Golladay et al. 2004, p. 504; 
Seager et al. 2009, p. 5043). During a period of drought from 2004 to 
2007, rainfall during the Mississippi gopher frog breeding season was 
insufficient to support recruitment of metamorphic frogs to the 
population (Sisson 2004, p. 7; Sisson 2005, pp. 11-12; Baxley and 
Qualls 2006, pp. 7-9; Baxley and Qualls 2007, p. 13).
    The information currently available on the effects of global 
climate change and increasing temperatures does not make sufficiently 
precise estimates of the location and magnitude of the effects. Nor are 
we currently aware of any climate change information specific to the 
habitat of the Mississippi gopher frog that would indicate what areas 
may become important to the species in the future. Therefore, we are 
unable to determine what additional areas, if any, may be appropriate 
to include in the proposed critical habitat for this species; however, 
we specifically request information from the public on the currently 
predicted effects of climate change on the Mississippi gopher frog and 
its habitat. Additionally, we recognize that critical habitat 
designated at a particular point in time may not include all of the 
habitat areas that we may later determine are necessary for the 
recovery of the species. For these reasons, a critical habitat 
designation does not signal that habitat outside the designated 
critical habitat area is unimportant or may not be required for 
recovery of the species.
    Areas that are important to the conservation of the species, but 
are outside the critical habitat designation, will continue to be 
subject to conservation actions we implement under section 7(a)(1) of 
the Act. Areas that support populations are also subject to the 
regulatory protections afforded by the section 7(a)(2) jeopardy 
standard, as determined on the basis of the best available scientific 
information at the time of the agency action. Federally funded or 
permitted projects affecting listed species outside their designated 
critical habitat areas may still result in jeopardy findings in some 
cases. 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), section 7 consultations, or other species 
conservation planning efforts if new information available at the time 
of these planning efforts calls for a different outcome.
Prudency Determination
    Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing 
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent 
and determinable, the Secretary designate critical habitat at the time 
the species is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our 
regulations at 50 CFR 424.12(a)(1) state that the designation of 
critical habitat is not prudent when one or both of the following 
situations exist: (1) The species is threatened by taking or other 
activity and the identification of critical habitat can be expected to 
increase the degree of threat to the species; or (2) the designation of 
critical habitat would not be beneficial to the species.
    There is no documentation that the Mississippi gopher frog is 
threatened by taking or other human activity. In the absence of finding 
that the designation of critical habitat would increase threats to the 
species, if there are any benefits to a critical habitat designation, 
then a prudent finding is warranted. The potential benefits include: 
(1) Triggering consultation, under section 7 of the Act, in new areas 
for action in which there may be a Federal nexus where consultation 
would not otherwise occur, because, for example, an area is or has 
become unoccupied or the occupancy is in question; (2) identifying the 
physical and biological features essential to the Mississippi gopher 
frog and focusing conservation activities on these essential features 
and the areas that support them; (3) providing educational benefits to 
State or county governments or private entities engaged in activities 
or long-range planning in areas essential to the conservation of the 
species; and (4) preventing people from causing inadvertent harm to the 
species. Conservation of the Mississippi gopher frog and the essential 
features of the habitat will require habitat protection and 
restoration, which will be facilitated by knowledge of habitat 
locations and the physical and biological features of those habitats.
    Therefore, since we have determined that the designation of 
critical habitat will not likely increase the degree of threat to the 
species and may provide some measure of benefit, we find that the 
designation of critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog is 
prudent.

[[Page 31391]]

Critical Habitat Determinability
    As stated above, section 4(a)(3) of the Act requires the 
designation of critical habitat concurrently with the species' listing 
``to the maximum extent prudent and determinable.'' Our regulations at 
50 CFR 424.12(a)(2) state that critical habitat is not determinable 
when one or both of the following situations exist:
    (1) Information sufficient to perform required analyses of the 
impacts of the designation is lacking, or
    (2) The biological needs of the species are not sufficiently well 
known to permit identification of an area as critical habitat.
    When critical habitat is not determinable, the Act provides for an 
additional year to publish a critical habitat designation (16 U.S.C. 
1533(b)(6)(C)(ii)).
    We reviewed the available information pertaining to the biological 
needs of the Mississippi gopher frog, the historical distribution of 
the Mississippi gopher frog, and the habitat characteristics where they 
currently survive. This and other information represent the best 
scientific and commercial data available and led us to conclude that 
the designation of critical habitat is determinable for the Mississippi 
gopher frog.
Methods
    As required by section 4(b) of the Act, we used the best scientific 
and commercial data available in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing 
contain the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the Mississippi gopher frog that may require special 
management considerations or protections, and which areas outside of 
the geographical area occupied at the time of listing are essential for 
the conservation of the species.
    We reviewed the available information pertaining to historical and 
current distributions, life histories, and habitat requirements of this 
species. Our sources included peer-reviewed scientific publications; 
unpublished survey reports; unpublished field observations by the 
Service, State, and other experienced biologists; notes and 
communications from qualified biologists or experts; Service 
publications such as the final listing rule for the Mississippi gopher 
frog; and Geographic Information System (GIS) data (such as species 
occurrence data, habitat data, land use, topography, digital aerial 
photography, and ownership maps).

Physical and Biological Features

    In accordance with section 3(5)(A)(i) and 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act and 
the regulations at 50 CFR 424.12, in determining which areas within the 
geographical area occupied at the time of listing to propose as 
critical habitat, we consider the physical and biological features 
essential to the conservation of the species 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 of offspring; and
    (5) Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are 
representative of the historic, geographical, and ecological 
distributions of a species.
    We consider the specific physical and biological features to be the 
primary constituent elements (PCEs; see ``Primary Constituent 
Elements'' below) laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial 
arrangement for the conservation of the species. We derive the PCEs 
required for the species from the biological needs of the Mississippi 
gopher frog as described in the Background section of this proposed 
rule and the final listing rule (66 FR 62993). To identify the physical 
and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
Mississippi gopher frog, we have relied on current conditions at 
locations where the species survives, the limited information available 
on this species and its close relatives, as well as factors associated 
with the decline of other amphibians that occupy similar habitats in 
the lower Southeastern Coastal Plain (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
2001, pp. 62993-63002).
Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior
    Mississippi gopher frogs are terrestrial amphibians endemic to the 
longleaf pine ecosystem. They spend most of their lives underground and 
occur in forested habitat consisting of fire-maintained, open-canopied 
woodlands historically dominated by longleaf pine, with naturally 
occurring slash pine (P. elliotti) in wetter areas. Frequent fires also 
support a diverse ground cover of herbaceous plants, both in the 
uplands and in the breeding ponds (Hedman et al. 2000, p. 233; Kirkman 
et al. 2000, p. 373). Historically, fire-tolerant longleaf pine 
dominated the uplands; however, much of the original habitat has been 
converted to pine (often loblolly (P. taeda) or slash pine) plantations 
and has become a closed-canopy forest unsuitable as habitat for gopher 
frogs (Roznik and Johnson 2009a, p. 265).
    During the breeding season, Mississippi gopher frogs leave their 
subterranean retreats in the uplands and migrate to their breeding 
sites during rains associated with passing cold fronts. Breeding sites 
are ephemeral (seasonally flooded) isolated ponds (not connected to 
other water bodies) located in the uplands. Both forested uplands and 
isolated wetlands (see further discussion of isolated wetlands in Sites 
for Breeding, Reproduction, and Rearing of Offspring section) are 
needed to provide space for individual and population growth and normal 
behavior.
    Few data are available on the distance between the wetland breeding 
and upland terrestrial habitats of post-larval and adult Mississippi 
gopher frogs. After breeding, adult Mississippi gopher frogs leave pond 
sites during major rainfall events. Richter et al. (2001, pp. 316-321) 
used radio transmitters to track a total of 13 adult frogs at Glen's 
Pond, the primary Mississippi gopher frog breeding site, located in 
Harrison County, Mississippi. The farthest movement recorded was 299 
meters (m) (981 feet (ft)) by a frog tracked for 63 days from the time 
of its exit from the breeding site (Richter et al. 2001, p. 318). In 
Florida, closely related Florida gopher frogs (Rana capito aesopus) 
have been found up to 2 kilometers (km) (1.2 miles (mi) from their 
breeding sites (Carr 1940, p. 64; Franz et al. 1988, p. 82), although 
how frequently gopher frogs make these long-distance movements is not 
known (see discussion in Roznik et al. 2009, p. 192). It is difficult 
to interpret habitat use from the available movement data we have for 
the Mississippi gopher frog. However, we have calculated the area of a 
circle, using the value of 350 m (1,148 ft) as the radius around a 
point represented by the breeding site, to define the area of habitat 
we believe would protect the majority of a Mississippi gopher frog 
population's breeding and upland habitat. We chose the value of 350 m 
(1,148 ft) by using the known farthest distance movement for the 
Mississippi gopher frog of 299 m (rounded up to 300 m) and adding 50 m 
(164 ft) to this distance to minimize the edge effects of the 
surrounding land use as recommended by Semlitsch and Bodie (2003, pp. 
1222-1223). Due to the low number of occupied sites for the species, we 
are conducting habitat management at potential relocation sites

[[Page 31392]]

with the hope of establishing new populations (see discussion above at 
Geographic Range, Habitat, Threats, and Status section). When possible, 
we are managing wetlands within 1,000 m (3,281 ft) of each other, in 
these areas, as a block in order to create multiple breeding sites and 
metapopulation structure (defined as neighboring local populations 
close enough to one another that dispersing individuals could be 
exchanged (gene flow) at least once per generation) in support of 
recovery (Marsh and Trenham 2001, p. 40; Richter et al. 2003, p. 177).
    Due to fragmentation and destruction of habitat, the current range 
of naturally occurring Mississippi gopher frogs has been reduced to 
three sites. In addition, the gopher tortoise, whose burrows are 
considered to be optimal terrestrial habitat for gopher frogs, is a 
rare and declining species that is listed as a threatened species under 
the Act within the range of the Mississippi gopher frog. Fragmentation 
of the frog's habitat has subjected the species' small, isolated 
populations to genetic isolation and reduction of space for 
reproduction, development of young, and population maintenance; thus, 
fragmentation has increased the likelihood of population extinction 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001, pp. 62993-63002). Genetic 
variation and diversity within a species are essential for recovery, 
adaptation to environmental changes, and long-term viability 
(capability to live, reproduce, and develop) (Harris 1984, pp. 93-107). 
Long-term viability is founded on the existence of numerous 
interbreeding local populations throughout the range (Harris 1984, pp. 
93-107). Connectivity of Mississippi gopher frog breeding and 
nonbreeding habitat within the geographic area occupied by the species 
must be maintained to support the species' survival (Semlitsch 2002, p. 
624; Harper et al. 2008, p. 1205). Additionally, connectivity of these 
sites with other areas outside the geographical area occupied currently 
by the Mississippi gopher frog is essential for the conservation of the 
species (Semlitsch 2002, p. 624; Harper et al. 2008, p. 1205).
    Based on the biological information and needs discussed above, it 
is essential to protect ephemeral isolated ponds and associated 
forested uplands, and connectivity of these areas, to accommodate 
breeding, growth, and other normal behaviors of the Mississippi gopher 
frog and to promote genetic flow within the species.
Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or 
Physiological Requirements
    Mississippi gopher frog tadpoles eat periphyton (microscopic algae, 
bacteria, and protozoans) from surfaces of emergent vegetation or along 
the pond bottom, as is typical of pond-type tadpoles (Duellman and 
Trueb 1986, p. 159). Juvenile and adult gopher frogs are carnivorous. 
Insects found in their stomachs have included carabid (Pasimachus sp.) 
and scarabaeid (genera Canthon sp. and Ligryus sp.) beetles (Netting 
and Goin 1942, p. 259) and Ceuthophilus crickets (Milstrey 1984, p. 
10). Mississippi gopher frogs are gape-limited (limited by the size of 
the jaw opening) predators with a diet probably similar to that 
reported for other gopher frogs, including frogs, toads, beetles, 
hemipterans, grasshoppers, spiders, roaches, and earthworms (Dickerson 
1906, p. 196; Carr 1940, p. 64). Within the pine uplands, a diverse and 
abundant herbaceous layer consisting of native species, maintained by 
frequent fires, is important to maintain the prey base for juvenile and 
adult Mississippi gopher frogs. Wetland water quality and an open 
canopy (Skelly et al. 2002, p. 983) are important to the maintenance of 
the periphyton that serves as a food source for Mississippi gopher frog 
tadpoles.
    Based on the biological information and needs discussed above, we 
believe it is essential that Mississippi gopher frog habitat consist of 
ephemeral, isolated ponds with emergent vegetation, and open-canopied 
pine uplands with a diverse herbaceous layer, to provide for adequate 
food sources for the frog.
Cover or Shelter
    Amphibians need to maintain moist skin for respiration (breathing) 
and osmoregulation (controlling the amounts of water and salts in their 
bodies) (Duellman and Trueb 1986, pp. 197-222). Since Mississippi 
gopher frogs disperse from their aquatic breeding sites to the uplands 
where they live as adults, desiccation (drying out) can be a limiting 
factor in their movements. Thus, it is important that areas connecting 
their wetland and terrestrial habitats are protected in order to 
provide cover and appropriate moisture regimes during their migration. 
Richter et al. (2001, pp. 317-318) found that during migration, 
Mississippi gopher frogs used clumps of grass or leaf litter for 
refuge. Protection of this connecting habitat may be particularly 
important for juveniles as they move out of the breeding pond for the 
first time. Studies of migratory success in post-metamorphic amphibians 
have demonstrated the importance of high levels of survival of these 
individuals to population maintenance and persistence (Rothermel 2004, 
pp. 1544-1545).
    Both adult and juvenile Mississippi gopher frogs spend most of 
their lives underground in forested uplands (Richter et al. 2001, p. 
318). Underground retreats include gopher tortoise burrows, small 
mammal burrows, stump holes, and root mounds of fallen trees (Richter 
et al. 2001, p. 318). Availability of appropriate underground sites is 
especially important for juveniles in their first year. Survival of 
juvenile gopher frogs in north-central Florida was found to be 
dependent on their use of underground refugia (Roznik and Johnson 
2009b, p. 431). Mortality for a frog occupying an underground refuge 
was estimated to be only four percent of the likelihood of mortality 
for a frog not occupying an underground refuge (Roznik and Johnson 
2009b, p. 434).
    Based on the biological information and needs discussed above, we 
believe it is essential that Mississippi gopher frog habitat have 
appropriate connectivity habitat between wetland and upland sites to 
support survival during migration. Additionally, we believe it is 
essential that non-wetland habitats contain a variety of underground 
retreats such as gopher tortoise burrows, small mammal burrows, stump 
holes, and root mounds of fallen trees to provide cover and shelter for 
the Mississippi gopher frog.
Sites for Breeding, Reproduction, or Rearing
    Mississippi gopher frog breeding sites are isolated ponds that dry 
completely on a cyclic basis. Faulkner (66 FR 62994) conducted 
hydrologic research at the Glen's Pond site on DeSoto National Forest, 
Harrison County, Mississippi. He described the pond as a depressional 
feature on a topographic high. The dominant source of water to the pond 
is rainfall within a small, localized watershed that extends 61 to 122 
m (200 to 400 ft) from the pond's center. Substantial winter rains are 
needed to ensure that the pond fills sufficiently to allow hatching, 
development, and metamorphosis (change to adults) of larvae. The timing 
and frequency of rainfall are critical to the successful reproduction 
and recruitment of Mississippi gopher frogs. Adult frogs move to 
wetland breeding sites during heavy rain events, usually from January 
to late March (Richter and Seigel 2002, p. 964). Studies at Glen's Pond 
indicate that this breeding pond is

[[Page 31393]]

approximately 1.5 hectares (ha) (3.8 acres (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, has an open canopy, and contains 
emergent and submergent vegetation. It is especially important that a 
breeding pond have an open canopy: though the mechanism is unclear, it 
is believed an open canopy is critical to tadpole development. 
Experiments conducted by Thurgate and Pechmann (2007, pp. 1845-1852) 
demonstrated the lethal and sublethal effects of canopy closure on 
Mississippi gopher frog tadpoles. The general habitat attributes of the 
other three Mississippi gopher frog breeding ponds are similar to those 
of Glen's Pond. Female Mississippi gopher frogs attach their eggs to 
rigid vertical stems of emergent vegetation (Young 1997, p. 48). 
Breeding ponds typically dry in early to mid-summer, but on occasion 
have remained wet until early fall (Richter and Seigel 1998, p. 24). 
Breeding ponds of closely related gopher frogs in Alabama and Florida 
have similar structure and function to those of the Mississippi gopher 
frog (Bailey 1990, p. 29; Palis 1998, p. 217; Greenberg 2001, p. 74).
    An unpolluted wetland with water free of predaceous fish, sediment, 
pesticides, and chemicals associated with road runoff is important for 
egg development, tadpole growth and development; and successful mating 
and egg-laying by adult frogs.
    Based on the biological information and needs discussed above, we 
believe that in order to provide for breeding and development of the 
species, it is essential that Mississippi gopher frog habitat contain 
isolated ponds with hard bottoms, open canopies, and emergent 
vegetation, and water free of predaceous fish, sediment, pesticides, 
and chemicals associated with road runoff.
    In summary, based on the biological information and needs described 
above, essential Mississippi gopher frog habitat consists of upland 
forested terrestrial habitat, maintained by frequent fires, and 
unpolluted isolated wetland breeding sites, and the connectivity of 
these sites, to accommodate feeding, breeding, growth, and other normal 
behaviors of the Mississippi gopher frog and to promote genetic flow 
within the species.
    Based on our current knowledge of life history, biology, and 
ecology of the Mississippi gopher frog and the requirements of the 
habitat to sustain the essential life history functions of the species, 
we determined that the PCEs specific to the Mississippi gopher frog 
are:
    (1) 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 (ha) (<1 to 
10 acres (ac)), ephemeral, and acidic. Specific conditions necessary in 
breeding ponds to allow for successful reproduction of Mississippi 
gopher frogs are: An open canopy with emergent herbaceous vegetation 
for egg attachment; an absence of large, predatory fish which prey on 
frog larvae; water quality such that frogs, their eggs, or larvae are 
not exposed to pesticides or chemicals and sediment associated with 
road runoff; and 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) Upland forested nonbreeding habitat historically dominated by 
longleaf pine, adjacent and accessible to and from breeding ponds, that 
is maintained by fires frequent enough to support an open canopy and 
abundant herbaceous ground cover and gopher tortoise burrows, small 
mammal burrows, stump holes, or other underground habitat that the 
Mississippi gopher frog depends upon for food, shelter, and protection 
from the elements and predation; and
    (3) Accessible upland connectivity habitat between breeding and 
nonbreeding habitats which allows for Mississippi gopher frog movements 
between and among such sites and that is characterized by an open 
canopy and abundant native herbaceous species and subsurface structure 
which provides shelter for Mississippi gopher frogs during seasonal 
movements, such as that created by deep litter cover, clumps of grass, 
or burrows.
    Critical habitat was delineated as described above using the value 
of 350 m (1,148 ft) as the radius around a point represented by the 
breeding site, to define the area of habitat we believe would protect 
the majority of a Mississippi gopher frog population's breeding and 
upland habitat. We chose the value of 350 m (1,148 ft) by using the 
known farthest distance movement for the Mississippi gopher frog of 299 
m (rounded up to 300 m) and adding 50 m (164 ft) to this distance to 
minimize the edge effects of the surrounding land use as recommended by 
Semlitsch and Bodie (2003, pp. 1222-1223). When possible, we are 
managing wetlands within 1,000 m (3,281 ft) of each other, in these 
areas, as a block in order to create multiple breeding sites and 
metapopulation structure (defined as neighboring local populations 
close enough to one another that dispersing individuals could be 
exchanged (gene flow) at least once per generation) in support of 
recovery (Marsh and Trenham 2001, p. 40; Richter et al. 2003, p. 177).
    With this proposed designation of critical habitat, we intend to 
conserve the physical and biological features essential to the 
conservation of the species, through the identification of the 
appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement of the PCEs sufficient to 
support the life history functions of the species. Each of the areas 
proposed as critical habitat in this rule contains sufficient PCEs to 
provide for one or more of the life history functions of the 
Mississippi gopher frog.

Special Management Considerations or Protection

    When designating critical habitat, we assess whether the specific 
areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time 
of listing contain physical and biological features that are essential 
to the conservation of the species and whether those features may 
require special management considerations or protection.
    The essential physical and biological features within the area we 
are proposing for designation as critical habitat that is within the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time it was listed, 
will require some level of management to address the current and future 
threats. This area of proposed critical habitat is not presently under 
special management or protection provided by a legally operative plan 
or agreement for the conservation of the Mississippi gopher frog. 
Various activities in or adjacent to this area of proposed critical 
habitat may affect one or more of the PCEs. For example, features in 
this proposed critical habitat designation may require special 
management due to threats posed by land use conversions, primarily 
urban development and conversion to agriculture and pine plantations; 
stump removal and other soil-disturbing activities which destroy the 
below-ground structure within forest soils; fire suppression and low 
fire frequencies; wetland destruction and degradation; random effects 
of drought or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas, water, electrical 
power, and sewer easements; and activities which disturb underground 
refugia used by Mississippi gopher frogs for foraging, protection from 
predators, and shelter from the elements. Other activities that may 
affect PCEs in the proposed critical habitat units include those listed 
in the Effects of Critical Habitat Designation section below.

[[Page 31394]]

    The designation of critical habitat does not imply that lands 
outside of critical habitat do not play an important role in the 
conservation of the Mississippi gopher frog. Activities with a Federal 
nexus that may affect areas outside of critical habitat, such as 
development; road construction and maintenance; and gas, water, 
electrical power, and sewer easements and/or pipelines, are still 
subject to review under section 7 of the Act if they may affect the 
Mississippi gopher frog, because Federal agencies must consider both 
effects to the species and effects to critical habitat independently. 
The Service should be consulted for disturbances to areas both within 
the proposed critical habitat units as well as outside the proposed 
critical habitat designation in other geographic areas within the 
historical range of the Mississippi gopher frog where the species may 
still persist. The prohibitions of section 9 of the Act against the 
take of listed species also continue to apply both inside and outside 
of designated critical habitat.

Criteria Used to Identify Proposed Critical Habitat

    Using the best scientific and commercial data available, as 
required by section 4(b) of the Act, we identified those areas to 
propose for designation as critical habitat, within the geographical 
area occupied by the species at the time of listing, that contain those 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
Mississippi gopher frog and which may require special management 
considerations or protection. We also considered the area outside the 
geographical area occupied by the species at the time of listing that 
is essential for the conservation of the Mississippi gopher frog. Many 
of the areas we considered for inclusion are part of ongoing recovery 
initiatives for this species.
    We used the best scientific data available in determining areas 
that contain the features that are essential to the conservation of the 
Mississippi gopher frog that are those physical and biological features 
laid out in the appropriate quantity and spatial arrangement for the 
conservation of the species (see the Physical and Biological Features 
section). We are proposing to designate as critical habitat one site 
within the geographical area that was occupied by the Mississippi 
gopher frog at the time of listing, and which is known to be currently 
occupied. We are also proposing to designate additional areas, both 
currently occupied and unoccupied, as critical habitat. We have 
determined that these areas, which are outside the geographical area 
occupied by the species at the time of listing, are essential to the 
conservation of the species because they provide additional habitat for 
maintenance of newly discovered populations and for population 
expansion which is needed to conserve the Mississippi gopher frog.
    We began our critical habitat analysis by evaluating the 
Mississippi gopher frog in the context of its historic distribution to 
determine what portion of its range still contains the physical and 
biological features that are essential to the conservation of the 
species. We assessed the critical life-history components of the 
Mississippi gopher frog, as they relate to habitat. Mississippi gopher 
frogs require small, acidic, depressional standing bodies of freshwater 
for breeding, upland pine forested habitat that has an open canopy 
maintained by fire for non-breeding habitat, and upland connectivity 
habitat areas that allow for movement between nonbreeding and breeding 
sites.
    To determine which areas should be designated as critical habitat, 
we evaluated the essential physical and biological features of 
Mississippi gopher frog habitat as it exists within the currently 
occupied habitat. As discussed above, we considered the following 
criteria in the selection of areas that contain the essential features 
for the Mississippi gopher frog when designating units: (1) The 
historic 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.
Currently Occupied Habitat Proposed as Critical Habitat
    As discussed above, currently occupied habitat for the Mississippi 
gopher frog is limited to four sites: One location on the DeSoto 
National Forest, Harrison County, Mississippi; one site on State land 
in Jackson County, Mississippi; and two sites on private land in 
Jackson County, Mississippi. Only the Harrison County site was occupied 
at the time of listing, while the remaining sites were found to be 
occupied, or became occupied, after the date of listing. We believe 
that all currently occupied areas contain those physical and biological 
features essential to the conservation of these species which may 
require special management considerations or protection and are 
themselves essential to the conservation of the species.
Currently Unoccupied Habitat Proposed as Critical Habitat
    The currently occupied habitat of the Mississippi gopher frog is 
highly localized and fragmented. With such limited distribution, the 
Mississippi gopher frog is at high risk of extinction and highly 
susceptible to stochastic events. Pond-breeding amphibians are 
particularly susceptible to drought, as breeding cannot occur if 
breeding ponds do not receive adequate rainfall. Isolated populations, 
such as these of the Mississippi gopher frog, are highly susceptible to 
random events. Protection of a single, isolated, minimally viable 
population risks the extirpation or extinction of a species as a result 
of harsh environmental conditions, catastrophic events, or genetic 
deterioration over several generations (Kautz and Cox 2001, p. 59). To 
reduce the risk of extinction through these processes, it is important 
to establish multiple protected subpopulations across the landscape 
(Soule and Simberloff 1986, pp. 25-35; Wiens 1996, pp. 73-74).
    We used information from surveys and reports prepared by the 
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources; Mississippi 
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks; and Mississippi gopher 
frog researchers, along with Service data and records, to search for 
additional locations with the potential to be occupied by the 
Mississippi gopher frog. Habitat in Alabama and Louisiana is severely 
limited, so our focus was on identifying sites in Mississippi. Wetlands 
throughout the coastal counties of Mississippi were identified using 
U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps, National Wetland Inventory 
maps, Natural Resource Conservation Service county soil survey maps, 
and satellite imagery. Habitat with the best potential of establishing 
the physical and biological features essential to the conservation of 
the Mississippi gopher frog were concentrated on the DeSoto National 
Forest in Forrest, Harrison, and Perry Counties in southern 
Mississippi. Some additional sites were found in Jackson County on 
Federal land being managed by the State as a Wildlife Management Area 
and on private land being managed as a wetland mitigation bank. Habitat 
restoration efforts have been successful in establishing at least one 
of the PCEs on each of these sites, and management is continuing, with 
the goal of establishing all of the PCEs at all of the sites.

[[Page 31395]]

    The currently unoccupied sites that we are proposing as critical 
habitat are all within the historical range of the Mississippi gopher 
frog. We believe that the designation of additional areas not known to 
be currently occupied is essential for the conservation of the 
Mississippi gopher frog. The range of the Mississippi gopher frog has 
been severely curtailed, occupied habitats are limited and isolated, 
and population sizes are extremely small. While the four occupied units 
provide habitat for current populations, they may be 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). The inclusion 
of essential unoccupied areas will provide habitat for population 
translocation and will decrease the risk of extinction of the species. 
Based on the best scientific data, we believe that these areas not 
currently occupied by the Mississippi gopher frog are essential for the 
conservation of the species.
    We have determined that, with proper protection and management, the 
areas we are proposing for critical habitat are adequate for the 
conservation of the species based on our current understanding of the 
species' requirements. However, as discussed in the Critical Habitat 
section above, we recognize that designation of critical habitat may 
not include all habitat areas that we may eventually determine are 
necessary for the recovery of the species and that for this reason, a 
critical habitat designation does not signal that habitat outside the 
designated area is unimportant or may not promote the recovery of the 
species.
    We delineated the critical habitat unit boundaries using the 
following steps:
    (1) We used digital aerial photography using ArcMap 9.3.1 to map 
the specific location of the breeding site occupied by the Mississippi 
gopher frog at the time of listing, and those locations of potential 
breeding sites outside the geographical area occupied by the species at 
the time it was listed, both occupied and not occupied, that were 
determined to be essential for the conservation of the species.
    (2) We delineated proposed critical habitat areas by buffering the 
above locations by a distance of 350 m (1,148 ft) where possible to 
incorporate all PCEs within the critical habitat boundaries.
    (3) We used aerial imagery and ArcMap to connect critical habitat 
areas within 1,000 m (3,281 ft) of each other to create metapopulation 
structure where possible.
    When determining proposed critical habitat boundaries, we made 
every effort to avoid including developed areas, such as lands covered 
by buildings, roads, and other structures, because such lands lack PCEs 
for the Mississippi gopher frog. The scale of the maps we prepared 
under the parameters for publication within the Code of Federal 
Regulations may not reflect the exclusion of such developed lands. Any 
such lands inadvertently left inside critical habitat boundaries shown 
on the maps of this proposed rule have been excluded by text in the 
proposed rule and are not proposed for designation as critical habitat. 
Therefore, Federal action involving these lands would not trigger 
section 7 consultation with respect to critical habitat and the 
requirement of no adverse modification unless the specific action would 
affect the physical and biological features in the adjacent critical 
habitat.

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

    We are proposing to designate 11 units totaling approximately 792 
ha (1,957 ac) as critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog. The 
critical habitat areas described below constitute our best assessment 
of areas that currently meet the definition of critical habitat for the 
Mississippi gopher frog. Table 1 identifies the proposed units for the 
species and shows the occupancy of the subunits within the proposed 
designated areas.

 TABLE 1. Occupancy of Mississippi Gopher Frog Proposed Critical Habitat Units with Area Estimates (Hectares (ha) and Acres (ac)). Totals may not match
                                                                    due to rounding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Currently Occupied
                                                               Occupied at Time of    (but not known to be
                Unit                         County                  Listing          occupied at the time   Currently Unoccupied     Total Unit Area
                                                                                          of listing)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1                                    Harrison                39 ha (96 ac)                                  238 ha (588 ac)        277 ha (685 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2                                    Harrison                                                               39 ha (96 ac)          39 ha (96 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3                                    Jackson                                         39 ha (96 ac)          72 ha (178 ac)         111 ha (274 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4                                    Jackson                                         39 ha (96 ac)          28 ha (69 ac)          67 ha (166 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5                                    Jackson                                                                39 ha (96 ac)          39 ha (96 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6                                    Jackson                                         39 ha (96 ac)                                 39 ha (96 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7                                    Forrest                                                                39 ha (96 ac)          39 ha (96 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8                                    Forrest                                                                39 ha (96 ac)          39 ha (96 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9                                    Perry                                                                  64 ha (158 ac)         64 ha (158 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10                                   Perry                                                                  39 ha (96 ac)          39 ha (96 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11                                   Perry                                                                  39 ha (96 ac)          39 ha (96 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Units                            All Counties            39 ha (96 ac)           117 ha (289 ac)        636 ha (1,572 ac)      792 ha (1,957 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 provides the approximate area and ownership encompassed 
within each critical habitat unit determined to meet the definition of 
critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog. Hectare and acre 
values were individually computer-

[[Page 31396]]

generated using GIS software, rounded to nearest whole number, and then 
summed.

 TABLE 2. Proposed Critical Habitat Units with Area Estimates (Hectares (ha) and Acres (ac)) and Land Ownership for the Mississippi Gopher Frog. Totals
                                                             may not match due to rounding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Ownership
                Unit                         County         ----------------------------------------------------------------------       Total Area
                                                                     Federal                 State                 Private
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1                                    Harrison                273 ha(675 ac)                                 4 ha (10 ac)           277 ha (685 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2                                    Harrison                39 ha (96 ac)                                                         39 ha (96 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3                                    Jackson                                                                111 ha (274 ac)        111 ha (274 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4                                    Jackson                                                                67 ha (166 ac)         67 ha (166 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5                                    Jackson                 39 ha (96 ac)                                                         39 ha (96 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6                                    Jackson                                         39 ha (96 ac)                                 39 ha (96 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7                                    Forrest                 39 ha (96 ac)                                                         39 ha (96 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8                                    Forrest                 39 ha (96 ac)                                                         39 ha (96 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9                                    Perry                   56 ha (138 ac)                                 8 ha (20 ac)           64 ha (158 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10                                   Perry                   39 ha (96 ac)                                                         39 ha (96 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11                                   Perry                   39 ha (96 ac)                                                         39 ha (96 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                All Counties            563 ha (1,391 ac)       39 ha (96 ac)          190 ha (470 ac)        792 ha (1,957 ac)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We present brief descriptions of each unit and reasons why they 
meet the definition of critical habitat below.

Unit 1: Harrison County, Mississippi

    Unit 1 encompasses 277 ha (685 ac) on Federal and private lands in 
Harrison County, Mississippi. This unit, between U.S. Hwy. 49 and Old 
Hwy. 67, is approximately 0.9 km (0.56 mi) north of the Biloxi River. 
It is located approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) east of U.S. Hwy. 49 and 
approximately 2.8 km (1.75 mi) west of Old Hwy. 67. Within this unit, 
approximately 273 ha (675 ac) are in the DeSoto National Forest and 4 
ha (10 ac) are in private ownership.
    Thirty-nine ha (96 ac) of Unit 1 are located around the only 
breeding pond (Glen's Pond) known for the Mississippi gopher frog when 
it was listed in 2001 and, as such, are within the geographical area of 
the species occupied at the time of listing. Glen's Pond and the 
habitat surrounding it, the majority of which is on the DeSoto National 
Forest, support most of the known Mississippi gopher frog populations. 
Threats to the Mississippi gopher frog and its habitat in areas of Unit 
1, within the geographical area of the species occupied at the time of 
listing, that may require special management and protection of PCEs 1, 
2, and 3, include the potential of: Fire suppression and low fire 
frequencies; detrimental alterations in forestry practices that could 
destroy below-ground 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; and gas, water, electrical power, and 
sewer easements. On portions of Unit 1 within the geographical area of 
the species occupied at the time of listing, and within private 
ownership, special management is needed to address the threats of 
direct agricultural and urban development (see also discussion in 
Special Management Considerations or Protections section).
    Most of Unit 1 (238 ha (588 ac)) is currently unoccupied. However, 
this unoccupied area consists of areas, within 1,000 m (3,281 ft) of 
each other or Glen's Pond, that we believe will create metapopulation 
structure and protect the Mississippi gopher frog from extinction. The 
unoccupied area surrounds three ponds on the DeSoto National Forest 
given the names of Reserve Pond, Pony Ranch Pond, and New Pond during 
on-going recovery initiatives. The U.S. Forest Service is actively 
managing this area to benefit the recovery of the Mississippi gopher 
frog. Due to its low number of remaining populations and severely 
restricted range, the Mississippi gopher frog is at high risk of 
extirpation for stochastic events, such as disease or drought. 
Maintaining this area as suitable habitat into which Mississippi gopher 
frogs could be translocated is essential to decrease the risk of 
extinction of the species resulting from stochastic events and provide 
for the species' eventual recovery. We determined that this area is 
essential to the conservation of the species because the ponds (PCE 1) 
and the surrounding uplands (PCEs 2 and 3) are suitable habitat within 
the dispersal range of the Mississippi gopher frog and thus provide the 
potential of establishing new breeding ponds and metapopulation 
structure which will support recovery of the species.

Unit 2: Harrison County, Mississippi

    Unit 2 encompasses 39 ha (96 ac) on Federal land in Harrison 
County, Mississippi. This unit is located on the DeSoto National Forest 
approximately 8 km (5 mi) east of Old Hwy. 67 and approximately 8.5 km 
(5.3 mi) southeast of the community of Success.
    Unit 2 is not within the geographic range of the species occupied 
at the time of listing and is currently unoccupied. This area surrounds 
a pond on the DeSoto National Forest given the name of Carr Bridge Road 
Pond during ongoing recovery initiatives when it was selected as a 
Mississippi gopher frog translocation site. The U.S. Forest Service is 
actively managing this area to

[[Page 31397]]

benefit the recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to its low 
number of remaining populations and severely restricted range, the 
Mississippi gopher frog may be at risk of extirpation for stochastic 
events, such as disease or drought. Maintaining this area as suitable 
habitat into which Mississippi gopher frogs could be translocated is 
essential to decrease the potential risk of extinction of the species 
resulting from stochastic events and provide for the species' eventual 
recovery. We determined that this area is essential to the conservation 
of the Mississippi gopher frog because it contains features essential 
to the conservation of the species, a potential breeding pond (PCE 1) 
and the surrounding uplands (PCEs 2 and 3), that provide habitat for 
future translocation of the species in support of Mississippi gopher 
frog recovery.

Unit 3: Jackson County, Mississippi

    Unit 3 encompasses 111 ha (274 ac) on private land in Jackson 
County, Mississippi. This unit is located approximately 0.3 km (0.2 mi) 
north of Interstate 10 and approximately 1.6 km (1 mi) west of State 
Hwy. 57.
    Unit 3 is not within the geographic range of the species occupied 
at the time of listing and contains both areas that are currently 
occupied and areas that are currently unoccupied. Thirty-nine ha (96 
ac) of Unit 3 are currently occupied as a result of translocation 
efforts conducted in 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008. Seventy-two 72 ha (178 
ac) of Unit 3 are currently unoccupied. Unit 3 consists of three ponds 
and their surrounding upland areas and is on private land being managed 
as a wetland mitigation bank. It is within the acquisition boundary of 
the Mississippi Sandhill Crane National Wildlife Refuge and actively 
being managed by the landowners to benefit the recovery of the 
Mississippi gopher frog. Due to its low number of remaining populations 
and severely restricted range, the Mississippi gopher frog may be at 
risk of extirpation for stochastic events, such as disease or drought. 
Maintaining this area as suitable habitat into which Mississippi gopher 
frogs could be translocated is essential to decrease the potential risk 
of extinction of the species resulting from stochastic events and 
provide for the species' eventual recovery. We determined that this 
area is essential to the conservation of the species because the pond 
(PCE 1) and the surrounding uplands (PCEs 2 and 3) have proven to be 
suitable habitat for establishing a Mississippi gopher frog population, 
this area also provides additional breeding ponds (PCE 1) and 
surrounding uplands (PCEs 2 and 3) which are suitable habitats within 
the dispersal range of the occupied site, and this area also provides 
metapopulation structure which will support recovery of the species.

Unit 4: Jackson County, Mississippi

    Unit 4 encompasses 67 ha (ac) on private land in Jackson County, 
Mississippi. This unit is located approximately 10.8 km (6.8 mi) north 
of Interstate 10. It is 0.47 km (0.3 mi) north of Jim Ramsey Road, 
approximately 3.4 km (2 mi) west of State Hwy. 57 and 6.2 km (3.9 mi) 
west of the community of Vancleave.
    Unit 4 is not within the geographic range of the species occupied 
at the time of listing and contains both areas that are currently 
occupied and areas that are currently unoccupied. Thirty-nine ha (96 
ac) of Unit 4 are located around a breeding pond, designated Mike's 
Pond, that was discovered to be occupied in 2004, subsequent to the 
listing of the Mississippi gopher frog. The remaining balance (28 ha 
(69 ac)) of Unit 4 is not currently occupied. This portion of Unit 4 
contains an additional pond which represents a potential Mississippi 
gopher frog breeding site and also connectivity habitat between it and 
Mike's Pond. Unit 4 is being actively managed by the landowners to 
benefit the recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to its low 
number of remaining populations and severely restricted range, the 
Mississippi gopher frog may be at risk of extirpation from stochastic 
events, such as disease or drought. Maintaining this area of occupied 
habitat, and suitable habitat into which Mississippi gopher frogs could 
be translocated, is essential to decrease the potential risk of 
extinction of the species resulting from stochastic events and provide 
for the species' eventual recovery. We determined that this area is 
essential to the conservation of the species because it represents 
habitat naturally occupied by the Mississippi gopher frog (PCEs 1, 2, 
and 3), and provides an additional pond (PCE 1) and surrounding uplands 
(PCEs 2 and 3) which are suitable habitats within the dispersal range 
of the occupied site. Thus, this area provides for the potential 
establishment of a new breeding pond and metapopulation structure which 
will support recovery of the species.

Unit 5: Jackson County, Mississippi

    Unit 5 encompasses 39 ha (96 ac) on Federal land in Jackson County, 
Mississippi. This unit is located on the Ward Bayou Wildlife Management 
Area (WMA) approximately 5.2 km (3.3 mi) northeast of State Hwy. 57 and 
the community of Vancleave. This land is owned by the Army Corps of 
Engineers (Corps) and managed by the Mississippi Department of 
Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks (MDWFP).
    Unit 5 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 Road Pond during ongoing recovery initiatives. Unit 5 is 
being actively managed by the Corps and MDWFP to benefit the recovery 
of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to its low number of remaining 
populations and severely restricted range, the Mississippi gopher frog 
may be at risk of extirpation for stochastic events, such as disease or 
drought. Maintaining this area of suitable habitat, into which 
Mississippi gopher frogs could be translocated, is essential to 
decrease the potential risk of extinction of the species resulting from 
stochastic events and provide for the species' eventual recovery. We 
determined that this area is essential to the conservation of the 
species because the pond (PCE 1) and the surrounding uplands (PCEs 2 
and 3) are suitable habitat for attempting to establish a Mississippi 
gopher frog population in support of recovery of the species.

Unit 6: Jackson County, Mississippi

    Unit 6 encompasses 39 ha (96 ac) on State land in Jackson County, 
Mississippi. This unit is located on 16th section land, approximately 
4.4 km (2.8 mi) east of State Hwy. 63, 4.5 km (2.8 mi) west of the 
Escatawpa River, and 4.0 km (2.5 mi) northeast of Helena, Mississippi. 
It is held in trust by the state of Mississippi as a local funding 
source for education in Jackson County. The local Jackson County School 
board has jurisdiction and control of the land.
    Unit 6 is not within the geographic range of the species occupied 
at the time of listing but is currently occupied. Unit 6 contains a 
breeding pond, designated McCoy's Pond, which was discovered subsequent 
to the listing of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to its low number of 
remaining populations and severely restricted range, the Mississippi 
gopher frog may be at risk of extirpation for stochastic events, such 
as disease or drought. Maintaining this area of currently occupied 
habitat is essential to decrease the potential risk of extinction of 
the species resulting from stochastic events and provide for the 
species' eventual recovery. We determined that this area is essential 
to the conservation of the species because it represents habitat 
naturally occupied by the Mississippi gopher frog (PCEs 1,

[[Page 31398]]

2, and 3) and will support recovery of the species.

Unit 7: Forrest County, Mississippi

    Unit 7 encompasses 39 ha (96 ac) on Federal land in Jackson County, 
Mississippi. This unit is located on the DeSoto National Forest 
approximately 2.1 km (1.3 mi) east of U.S. Hwy. 49, approximately 1.9 
km (1.2 mi) south of Black Creek, and approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) south 
of the community of Brooklyn, Mississippi.
    Unit 7 is not within the geographic range of the species occupied 
at the time of listing and is currently unoccupied. This area surrounds 
a pond on the DeSoto National Forest selected as a future Mississippi 
gopher frog translocation site during ongoing recovery initiatives. The 
U.S. Forest Service is actively managing this area to benefit the 
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to its low number of 
remaining populations and severely restricted range, the Mississippi 
gopher frog may be at risk of extirpation for stochastic events, such 
as disease or drought. Maintaining this area as suitable habitat into 
which Mississippi gopher frogs could be translocated is essential to 
decrease the potential risk of extinction of the species resulting from 
stochastic events and provide for the species' eventual recovery. We 
determined that this area is essential to the conservation of the 
Mississippi gopher frog because it contains features essential to the 
conservation of the species, a potential breeding pond (PCE 1) and the 
surrounding uplands (PCEs 2 and 3), that provide habitat for future 
reintroduction of the species in support of Mississippi gopher frog 
recovery.

Unit 8: Forrest County, Mississippi

    Unit 8 encompasses 39 ha (96 ac) on Federal land in Forrest County, 
Mississippi. This unit is located on the DeSoto National Forest 
approximately 4.3 km (2.7 mi) east of U.S. Hwy. 49, approximately 4.6 
km (2.9 mi) south of Black Creek, and approximately 6.1 km (3.8 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 surrounds 
a pond on the DeSoto National Forest selected as a future Mississippi 
gopher frog translocation site during ongoing recovery initiatives. The 
U.S. Forest Service is actively managing this area to benefit the 
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to its low number of 
remaining populations and severely restricted range, the Mississippi 
gopher frog may be at risk of extirpation for stochastic events, such 
as disease or drought. Maintaining this area as suitable habitat into 
which Mississippi gopher frogs could be translocated is essential to 
decrease the potential risk of extinction of the species resulting from 
stochastic events and provide for the species' eventual recovery. We 
determined that this area is essential to the conservation of the 
Mississippi gopher frog because it contains features essential to the 
conservation of the species, a potential breeding pond (PCE 1) and the 
surrounding uplands (PCEs 2 and 3), that provide habitat for future 
translocation of the species in support of Mississippi gopher frog 
recovery.

Unit 9: Perry County, Mississippi

    Unit 9 encompasses 56 ha (138 ac) on Federal land and 8 ha (20 ac) 
on private land in Perry County, Mississippi. This unit is located on 
the DeSoto National Forest 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 9 is not within the geographic range of the species occupied 
at the time of listing and is currently unoccupied. Unit 9 surrounds 
two ponds on the DeSoto National Forest selected as a future 
Mississippi gopher frog translocation sites during on-going recovery 
initiatives. The U.S. Forest Service is actively managing this area to 
benefit the recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to its low 
number of remaining populations and severely restricted range, the 
Mississippi gopher frog is at high risk of extirpation for stochastic 
events, such as disease or drought. Maintaining this area as suitable 
habitat into which Mississippi gopher frogs could be translocated is 
essential to decrease the risk of extinction of the species resulting 
from stochastic events and provide for the species' eventual recovery. 
We determined that this area is essential to the conservation of the 
Mississippi gopher frog because it contains features essential to the 
conservation of the species, two potential breeding ponds (PCE 1) and 
the surrounding uplands (PCEs 2 and 3), that provide habitat for future 
translocation of the species in support of Mississippi gopher frog 
recovery.

Unit 10: Perry County, Mississippi

    Unit 10 encompasses 39 ha (96 ac) on Federal land in Perry County, 
Mississippi. This unit is located on the DeSoto National Forest 
approximately 0.5 km (0.3 mi) northeast of the intersection of the 
Perry County, Stone County, and George County lines, approximately 0.23 
km (0.14 mi) north of Benndale Road, and approximately 6.7 km (4.2 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. Unit 10 surrounds a 
pond on the DeSoto National Forest selected as a future Mississippi 
gopher frog translocation site during ongoing recovery initiatives. The 
U.S. Forest Service is actively managing this area to benefit the 
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to its low number of 
remaining populations and severely restricted range, the Mississippi 
gopher frog may be at risk of extirpation for stochastic events, such 
as disease or drought. Maintaining this area as suitable habitat into 
which Mississippi gopher frogs could be translocated is essential to 
decrease the potential risk of extinction of the species resulting from 
stochastic events and provide for the species' eventual recovery. We 
determined that this area is essential to the conservation of the 
Mississippi gopher frog because it contains features essential to the 
conservation of the species, a potential breeding pond (PCE 1) and the 
surrounding uplands (PCEs 2 and 3), that provide habitat for future 
translocation of the species in support of Mississippi gopher frog 
recovery.

Unit 11: Perry County, Mississippi

    Unit 11 encompasses 39 ha (96 ac) on Federal land in Perry County, 
Mississippi. This unit is located on the DeSoto National Forest 
approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mi) east of Mars Hill Road, approximately 4.2 
km (2.6 mi) north of the intersection of the Perry County, Stone 
County, and George County lines, and approximately 10.5 km (6.6 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. Unit 11 surrounds a 
pond on the DeSoto National Forest selected as a future Mississippi 
gopher frog translocation site during on-going recovery initiatives. 
The U.S. Forest Service is actively managing this area to benefit the 
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog. Due to its low number of 
remaining populations and severely restricted range, the Mississippi 
gopher frog may be at risk of extirpation for stochastic events such as 
disease or drought. Maintaining this area as suitable habitat into 
which Mississippi gopher frogs could be translocated is essential to 
decrease the potential risk of extinction of the species resulting from 
stochastic events and provide for the species'

[[Page 31399]]

eventual recovery. We determined that this area is essential to the 
conservation of the Mississippi gopher frog because it contains 
features essential to the conservation of the species, a potential 
breeding pond (PCE 1) and the surrounding uplands (PCEs 2 and 3), that 
provide habitat for future translocation of the species in support of 
Mississippi gopher frog 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 actions they fund, authorize, or carry out are 
not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Decisions 
by the Fifth and Ninth Circuits Courts of Appeals have invalidated our 
definition of ``destruction or adverse modification'' (50 CFR 402.02) 
(see Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 378 
F.3d 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 245 F.3d 434, 442 (5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on this 
regulatory definition when analyzing whether an action is likely to 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Under the statutory 
provisions of the Act, we determine destruction or adverse modification 
on the basis of whether, with implementation of the proposed Federal 
action, the affected critical habitat would remain functional (or 
retain the current ability for the PCEs to be functionally established) 
to serve its intended conservation role for the species.
    Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with 
the Service 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. Conference reports 
provide conservation recommendations to assist the agency in 
eliminating conflicts that may be caused by the proposed action. We may 
issue a formal conference report if requested by a Federal agency. 
Formal conference reports on proposed critical habitat contain an 
opinion that is prepared according to 50 CFR 402.14, as if critical 
habitat were designated. We may adopt the formal conference report as 
the biological opinion when the critical habitat is designated, if no 
substantial new information or changes in the action alter the content 
of the opinion (see 50 CFR 402.10(d)). The conservation recommendations 
in a conference report or opinion are strictly advisory.
    If we list a species or designate critical habitat, section 7(a)(2) 
of the Act 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 to destroy or adversely modify 
its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a listed species 
or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency (action agency) 
must enter into consultation with us. As a result of this consultation, 
we document compliance with the requirements of section 7(a)(2) through 
our issuance of:
<bullet> A concurrence letter for Federal actions that may affect, but 
are not likely to adversely affect, listed species or critical habitat; 
or
<bullet> A biological opinion for Federal actions that may affect, and 
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 or 
destroy or adversely modify critical habitat, we also provide 
reasonable and prudent alternatives to the project, if any are 
identifiable. We define ``reasonable and prudent alternatives'' at 50 
CFR 402.02 as alternative actions identified during consultation that:
<bullet> Can be implemented in a manner consistent with the intended 
purpose of the action,
<bullet> Can be implemented consistent with the scope of the Federal 
agency's legal authority and jurisdiction,
<bullet> Are economically and technologically feasible, and
<bullet> Would, in the Director's opinion, avoid jeopardizing the 
continued existence of the listed species or destroying or adversely 
modifying critical habitat.
    Reasonable and prudent alternatives can vary from slight project 
modifications to extensive redesign or relocation of the project. Costs 
associated with implementing a reasonable and prudent alternative are 
similarly variable.
    Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require Federal agencies to reinitiate 
consultation on previously reviewed actions in instances where we have 
listed a new species or subsequently designated critical habitat that 
may be affected and the Federal agency has retained discretionary 
involvement or control over the action (or the agency's discretionary 
involvement or control is authorized by law). Consequently, Federal 
agencies may sometimes need to request reinitiation of consultation 
with us on actions for which formal consultation has been completed, if 
those actions with discretionary involvement or control may affect 
subsequently listed species or designated critical habitat.
    Federal activities that may affect the Mississippi gopher frog or 
its designated critical habitat will require section 7 consultation 
under the Act. Activities on State, Tribal, local, or private lands 
requiring a Federal permit (such as a permit from the U.S. Army Corps 
of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 
et seq.) or a permit under section 10 of the Act or involving some 
other Federal action (such as funding from the Federal Highway 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, or the Federal 
Emergency Management Agency) are subject to the section 7 consultation 
process. Federal actions not affecting listed species or critical 
habitat, and actions on State, Tribal, local, or private lands that are 
not Federally funded, authorized, or permitted, do not require section 
7 consultations.
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, or would retain its current ability 
for the essential features to be functionally established. Activities 
that may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that 
alter the essential features to an extent that appreciably reduces the 
conservation value of critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog.
    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, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a 
Federal agency, may affect critical habitat and therefore should result 
in consultation for the Mississippi gopher frog include, but are not 
limited to:
<bullet> Actions that would alter the hydrology or water quality of 
Mississippi gopher frog wetland habitats. Such activities could 
include, but are not limited to, discharge of fill material; release of 
chemicals and/or biological pollutants; clear-cutting, 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,

[[Page 31400]]

fire breaks, impoundments, discharge pipes, etc.); discharge or dumping 
of toxic chemicals, silt, or other pollutants (i.e., sewage, oil, 
pesticides, and gasoline); and use of vehicles within wetlands. These 
activities could destroy Mississippi gopher frog breeding sites, reduce 
the hydrological regime necessary for successful larval metamorphosis, 
and/or eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for the growth and 
reproduction, and affect the prey base, of the Mississippi gopher frog.
<bullet> Forestry management actions in pine habitat that would 
significantly alter the suitability of Mississippi gopher frog 
terrestrial habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited 
to, conversion of timber land to another use; timber management 
including clear-cutting, site preparation involving ground disturbance, 
prescribed burning, and unlawful pesticide application. These 
activities could destroy or alter the uplands necessary for the growth 
and development of juvenile and adult Mississippi gopher frogs.
<bullet> Actions that would significantly fragment and isolate 
Mississippi gopher frog wetland and upland habitats from each other. 
Such activities could include, but are not limited to, constructing new 
structures or new roads and converting forested habitat to other uses. 
These activities could limit or prevent the dispersal of Mississippi 
gopher frogs from breeding sites to upland habitat or vice versa due to 
obstructions to movement caused by structures, certain types of curbs, 
increased traffic density, or inhospitable habitat.

Exemptions

Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
    The Sikes Act Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a) 
required each military installation that includes land and water 
suitable for the conservation and management of natural resources to 
complete an integrated natural resources management plan (INRMP) by 
November 17, 2001. An INRMP integrates implementation of the military 
mission of the installation with stewardship of the natural resources 
found on the base. Each INRMP includes:
<bullet> An assessment of the ecological needs on the installation, 
including the need to provide for the conservation of listed species;
<bullet> A statement of goals and priorities;
<bullet> A detailed description of management actions to be implemented 
to provide for these ecological needs; and
<bullet> A monitoring and adaptive management plan.
    Among other things, each INRMP must, to the extent appropriate and 
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife management; fish and wildlife 
habitat enhancement or modification; wetland protection, enhancement, 
and restoration where necessary to support fish and wildlife; and 
enforcement of applicable natural resource laws.
    The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. 
L. 108-136) amended the Act to limit areas eligible for designation as 
critical habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i) of the Act (16 
U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i)) now provides: ``The Secretary shall not 
designate as critical habitat any lands or other geographical areas 
owned or controlled by the Department of Defense, or designated for its 
use, that are subject to an integrated natural resources management 
plan prepared under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a), if 
the Secretary determines in writing that such plan provides a benefit 
to the species for which critical habitat is proposed for 
designation.''
    There are no Department of Defense lands with a completed INRMP 
within the proposed critical habitat designation. Therefore, we are not 
proposing exemption of any lands owned or managed by the Department of 
Defense from this designation of critical habitat for the Mississippi 
gopher frog.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
    Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that the Secretary must designate 
or 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 
concerned. In making that determination, 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.
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we may exclude an area from 
designated critical habitat based on economic impacts, impacts on 
national security, or any other relevant impacts. In considering 
whether to exclude a particular area from the designation, we must 
identify the benefits of including the area in the designation, 
identify the benefits of excluding the area from the designation, and 
determine whether the benefits of exclusion outweigh the benefits of 
inclusion. If, based on this analysis, we determine that the benefits 
of exclusion outweigh the benefits of inclusion, we can exclude the 
area only if such exclusion would 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 are preparing an analysis of the probable 
economic impacts of the proposed critical habitat designation and 
related factors.
    We will announce the availability of the draft economic analysis as 
soon as it is completed, at which time we will seek public review and 
comment. At that time, copies of the draft economic analysis will be 
available for downloading from the Internet at the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, or by contacting the Mississippi 
Fish and Wildlife Office directly (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section). During the development of a final designation, we will 
consider economic impacts, public comments, and other new information, 
and as an outcome of our analysis of this information, we may exclude 
areas from the final critical habitat designation under section 4(b)(2) 
of the Act and our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.19.
National Security Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider whether there are 
lands owned or managed by the Department of Defense where a national 
security impact might exist. In preparing this proposal, we have 
determined that the lands within the proposed designation of critical 
habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog are not owned or managed by the 
DOD, and therefore, we anticipate no impact to national security. There 
are no areas proposed for exclusion based on impacts to national 
security.
Other Relevant Impacts
    Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we consider any other relevant 
impacts, in

[[Page 31401]]

addition to economic impacts and impacts on national security. We 
consider a number of factors, including whether the landowners have 
developed any conservation plans or other management plans for the 
area, or whether there are conservation partnerships that would be 
encouraged by designation of, or exclusion of, lands from critical 
habitat. In addition, we look at any Tribal issues, and consider the 
government-to-government relationship of the United States with Tribal 
entities. We also consider any social impacts that might occur because 
of the designation.
    In preparing this proposed rule, we have determined that there are 
currently no conservation plans or other management plans for the 
species, and the proposed designation does not include any Tribal lands 
or trust resources. We anticipate no impact to Tribal lands, 
partnerships, or HCPs or other management plans from this proposed 
critical habitat designation. There are no areas proposed for exclusion 
from this proposed designation based on other relevant impacts.
    Notwithstanding these decisions, as stated under the Public 
Comments section above, we request specific comments on whether any 
specific areas proposed for designation for the Mississippi gopher frog 
should be excluded under section 4(b)(2) of the Act from the final 
designation.
Peer Review
    In accordance with our joint policy published in the Federal 
Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert 
opinions of at least three appropriate and independent specialists 
regarding this proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure 
that our proposed actions are based on scientifically sound data, 
assumptions, and analyses. We will invite these peer reviewers to 
comment, during the public comment period, on the specific assumptions 
and conclusions regarding the proposed designation of critical habitat.
    We will consider all comments and information received during the 
comment period on this proposed rule during preparation of a final 
rulemaking. Accordingly, the final decision may differ from this 
proposal.
Public Hearings
    The Act provides for one or more public hearings on this proposal, 
if requested. Requests for public hearings must be made in writing 
within 45 days of the publication of this proposal (see DATES and 
ADDRESSES sections). We will schedule public hearings on this proposal, 
if any are requested, and announce the dates, times, and places of 
those hearings in the Federal Register and local newspapers at least 15 
days before the first hearing.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Order 12866

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

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

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., as 
amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 
(SBREFA) of 1996), 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 the agency 
certifies the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. The SBREFA amended RFA to require 
Federal agencies to provide a statement of the factual basis for 
certifying that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.
    At this time, we lack the specific information necessary to provide 
an adequate factual basis for determining the potential incremental 
regulatory effects of the designation of critical habitat for the 
Mississippi gopher frog to either develop the required RFA finding or 
provide the necessary certification statement that the designation will 
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small business 
entities. On the basis of the development of our proposal, we have 
identified certain sectors and activities that may potentially be 
affected by a designation of critical habitat for the Mississippi 
gopher frog. These sectors include timber operations, industrial 
development, and urbanization, along with the accompanying 
infrastructure associated with such projects such as road, storm water 
drainage, and bridge and culvert construction and maintenance. We 
recognize that not all of these sectors qualify as small business 
entities. However, while recognizing that these sectors and activities 
may be affected by this designation, we are collecting information and 
initiating our analysis to determine (1) which of these sectors or 
activities are or involve small business entities and (2) what extent 
the effects are related to the Mississippi gopher frog being listed as 
an endangered species under Act (baseline effects) or whether the 
effects are attributable to the designation of critical habitat 
(incremental). We believe that the potential incremental effects 
resulting from a designation will be small. As a consequence, following 
an initial evaluation of the information available to us, we do not 
believe that there will be a significant impact on a substantial number 
of small business entities resulting from this designation of critical 
habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog. However, we will be conducting 
a thorough analysis to determine if this may in fact be the case. As 
such, we are requesting any specific economic information related to 
small business entities that may be affected by this designation and 
how the designation may impact their business. Therefore, we defer our 
RFA finding on this proposed designation until completion of the draft 
economic analysis prepared under section 4(b)(2) of the Act and E.O. 
12866.
    As discussed above, this draft economic analysis will provide the 
required factual basis for the RFA finding. Upon completion of the 
draft economic analysis, we will announce availability of the draft 
economic analysis of the proposed designation in the Federal Register 
and reopen the public comment period for the proposed designation. We 
will include with this announcement, as appropriate, an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis or a certification that the rule will 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities accompanied by the factual basis for that determination. We 
have concluded

[[Page 31402]]

that deferring the RFA finding until completion of the draft economic 
analysis is necessary to meet the purposes and requirements of the RFA. 
Deferring the RFA finding in this manner will ensure that we make a 
sufficiently informed determination based on adequate economic 
information and provide the necessary opportunity for public comment.

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:
    (a) This rule would 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 jeopardize the continued existence of 
the species, or 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.
    (b) We do not believe that this rule would significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments because the Mississippi gopher frog 
occurs primarily on Federal and privately owned lands. None of these 
government entities fit the definition of ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' Therefore, a Small Government Agency Plan is not 
required. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct 
our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as 
warranted.

Takings--Executive Order 12630

    In accordance with E.O. 12630 (Government Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Private Property Rights), we have 
analyzed the potential takings implications of designating critical 
habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog in a takings implications 
assessment. The takings implications assessment concludes that this 
designation of critical habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog does 
not pose significant takings implications for lands within or affected 
by the proposed designation.

Federalism--Executive Order 13132

    In accordance with E. O. 13132 (Federalism), this rule does not 
have significant Federalism effects. A Federalism assessment is not 
required. In keeping with Department of the Interior and Department of 
Commerce policy, we requested information from, and coordinated 
development of this proposed critical habitat designation with 
appropriate State resource agencies in Mississippi. The critical 
habitat designation may have some benefit to this government in that 
the areas that contain the features essential to the conservation of 
the species are more clearly defined, and the essential features 
themselves are specifically identified. While making this definition 
and identification does not alter where and what federally sponsored 
activities may occur, it may assist local governments in long-range 
planning (rather than having them wait for case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).
    Where state and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

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

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    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 (NEPA)

    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 as defined by NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) in 
connection with designating critical habitat under the Act. We

[[Page 31403]]

published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination in the 
Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This position was 
upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Douglas 
County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S. 
1042 (1996)).

Clarity of the Rule

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

Government-to-Government Relationship with Tribes

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

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    On May 18, 2001, the President issued an Executive Order (E.O. 
13211; Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use) on regulations that significantly affect 
energy supply, distribution, and use. E.O. 13211 requires agencies to 
prepare Statements of Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. 
Based on an analysis of areas included in this proposal, we determined 
that this proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the 
Mississippi gopher frog 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. However, we will further evaluate this issue as we conduct 
our economic analysis, and review and revise this assessment as 
warranted.

References Cited

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

Author(s)

    The primary authors of this package are staff members of the 
Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter 
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

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 Sec.  17.11(h), revise the entry for ``Frog, Mississippi 
gopher'' under AMPHIBIANS in the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Species                                           Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------                   population where                                         Critical
                                                  Historic range     endangered or        Status         When listed        habitat       Special rules
         Common name            Scientific name                       threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       AMPHIBIANS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frog, Mississippi gopher       Rana sevosa       U.S.A.            Whereever found   E                 718              17.95(d)         NA
                                                  (AL,LA,MS)        west of Mobile
                                                                    and Tombigbee
                                                                    Rivers in AL,
                                                                    MS, and LA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 31404]]

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


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
Mississippi gopher frog (Rana sevosa)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for Forrest, Harrison, 
Jackson, and Perry Counties in Mississippi, on the maps below.
    (2) The primary constituent elements of critical habitat for the 
Mississippi gopher frog are:
    (i) 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 (ha) (<1 to 
10 acres (ac)), ephemeral, and acidic. Specific conditions necessary in 
breeding ponds to allow for successful reproduction of Mississippi 
gopher frogs are:
    (A) An open canopy with emergent herbaceous vegetation for egg 
attachment;
    (B) An absence of large, predatory fish 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 historically dominated by 
longleaf pine, adjacent and accessible to and from breeding ponds, that 
is maintained by fires frequent enough to support an open canopy and 
abundant herbaceous ground cover and gopher tortoise burrows, small 
mammal burrows, stump holes, or other underground habitat that the 
Mississippi gopher frog depends upon for food, shelter, and protection 
from the elements and predation.
    (iii) Accessible upland connectivity habitat between breeding and 
nonbreeding habitats to allow for Mississippi gopher frog movements 
between and among such sites and that is characterized by an open 
canopy and abundant native herbaceous species and subsurface structure 
which provides shelter for Mississippi gopher frogs during seasonal 
movements, such as that created by deep litter cover, clumps of grass, 
or burrows.
    (3) Critical habitat does not include manmade structures (such as 
buildings, bridges, aqueducts, airports, and roads) and the land on 
which they are located existing within the legal boundaries on the 
effective date of this rule.
    (4) Critical habitat unit maps. Maps were developed from USGS 7.5' 
quadrangles, and critical habitat units were then mapped using 
Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
    (5) Note: Index Map (Map 1) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310-55-S

[[Page 31405]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JN10.000

    (6) Unit 1: Harrison County, Mississippi.
    (i) Unit 1 from USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map, Success, 
Mississippi.
[Reserved for textual description of Unit 1.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 1 is provided at paragraph (7)(ii) of this 
entry.
    (7) Unit 2: Harrison County, Mississippi.
    (i) Unit 2 from USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map, White Plains, 
Mississippi.
[Reserved for textual description of Unit 2.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Units 1 and 2 follows:

[[Page 31406]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JN10.001

    (8) Unit 3: Jackson County, Mississippi.
    (i) Unit 3 from USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Gautier North, 
Mississippi.
[Reserved for textual description of Unit 3.]
    (ii) Note: Map depicting Unit 3 is provided at paragraph (10)(ii) 
of this entry.
    (9) Unit 4: Jackson County, Mississippi.
    (i) Unit 4 from USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Latimer, 
Mississippi.
[Reserved for textual description of Unit 4.]
    (ii) Note: Map depicting Unit 4 is provided at paragraph (10)(ii) 
of this entry.
    (10) Unit 5: Jackson County, Mississippi.
    (i) Unit 5 from USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Vancleave, 
Mississippi.

[[Page 31407]]

[Reserved for textual description of Unit 5.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Units 3, 4, and 5 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JN10.002
    
    (11) Unit 6: Jackson County, Mississippi.
    (i) Unit 6 from USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Big Point, 
Mississippi.
[Reserved for textual description of Unit 6.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 6 follows:

[[Page 31408]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JN10.003

    (12) Unit 7: Forrest County, Mississippi.
    (i) Unit 7 from USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Brooklyn, 
Mississippi.
[Reserved for textual description of Unit 7.]
    (ii) Note: Map depicting Unit 7 is provided at paragraph (13)(ii) 
of this entry.
    (13) Unit 8: Jackson County, Mississippi.
    (i) Unit 8 from USGS 1:24,000 scale quandrangle map Brooklyn, 
Mississippi.
[Reserved for textual description of Unit 8.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Units 7 and 8 follows:

[[Page 31409]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JN10.004

    (14) Unit 9: Perry County, Mississippi.
    (i) Map unit 9 from USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Barbara, 
Mississippi.
[Reserved for textual description of Unit 9.]
    (ii) Note: Map depicting Unit 9 is provided at paragraph (16)(ii) 
of this entry.
    (15) Unit 10: Perry County, Mississippi.
    (i) Map unit 10 from USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Barbara, 
Mississippi.
[Reserved for textual description of Unit 10.]
    (ii) Note: Map depicting Unit 10 is provided at paragraph (16)(ii) 
of this entry.

[[Page 31410]]

    (16) Unit 11: Perry County, Mississippi.
    (i) Map unit 11 from USGS 1:24,000 scale quadrangle map Barbara, 
Mississippi.
[Reserved for textual description of Unit 11.]
    (ii) Note: Map of Units 9, 10, and 11 follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JN10.005
    

[[Page 31411]]


* * * * *

    Dated: May 17, 2010
Thomas L. Strickland,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 2010-13359 Filed 6-2- 10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C