Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Mississippi Gopher Frog, 59774-59802 [2011-24046]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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



[[Page 59773]]

Vol. 76

Tuesday,

No. 187

September 27, 2011

Part II





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





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

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

[[Page 59774]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

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


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

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

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

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
    (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Keyword box, enter Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-
2010-0024, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, in the 
Search panel on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type 
heading, click on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You 
may submit a comment by clicking on ``Send a Comment or Submission.''
    (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to: Public 
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4-ES-2010-0024; Division of Policy and 
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax 
Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
    We will not accept e-mail or faxes. We will post all comments on 
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 View Parkway, Jackson, MS 39213; telephone: 601-321-1122; 
facsimile: 601-965-4340. If you use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD), call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-
877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Comments

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

[[Page 59775]]

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

Background

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

Taxonomy and Nomenclature

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

[[Page 59776]]

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

Critical Habitat

Background

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

[[Page 59777]]

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

Prudency Determination

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

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation for Mississippi Gopher Frog

Physical and Biological Features

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

[[Page 59778]]

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

[[Page 59779]]

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

[[Page 59780]]

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

Special Management Considerations or Protection

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

Criteria Used To Identify Critical Habitat

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

[[Page 59781]]

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

[[Page 59782]]

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

Proposed Critical Habitat Designation

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

                                      Table 1--Occupancy of Mississippi Gopher Frog Proposed Critical Habitat Units
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Currently occupied and    Currently occupied but   Currently unoccupied and
                    Unit                             Parish/county           known to be occupied at  not known to be occupied  not known to be occupied
                                                                               the time of listing     at the time of listing    at the time of listing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        LOUISIANA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..........................................  St. Tammany..................  ........................  ........................                        X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       MISSISSIPPI
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2, Subunit A...............................  Harrison.....................                        X   ........................  ........................
2, Subunit B...............................  Harrison.....................  ........................  ........................                        X
3..........................................  Jackson....