Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Mississippi Gopher Frog, 31387-31411 [2010-13359]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 106 (Thursday, June 3, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31387-31411]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS-R4-
ES-2010-0024.
     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 
https://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:
 The amount and distribution of Mississippi gopher frog 
habitat,
 What areas occupied at the time of listing and that contain 
physical and biological features essential to the conservation of the 
species,
 What special management considerations or protections may 
these features require, and
 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 https://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 https://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)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------