Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Mississippi Gopher Frog, 59774-59802 [2011-24046]
Download as PDF
59774
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Revised proposed rule;
availability of draft economic analysis;
and reopening of comment period.
AGENCY:
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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 email 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
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59775
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
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
59776
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 courtapproved 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
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
(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 nonFederal 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
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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.
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.
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
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;
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
Proposed Critical Habitat Designation
for Mississippi Gopher Frog
Physical and Biological Features
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59777
(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, firetolerant 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 closedcanopy 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
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
59778
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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 postbreeding 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 longdistance 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,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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 gapelimited (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 opencanopied pine uplands with a diverse
herbaceous layer, as physical and
biological features necessary to provide
for adequate food sources for the
Mississippi gopher frog.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
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 postmetamorphic 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59779
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.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
59780
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(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 lifehistory 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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; offroad 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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
´
(Soule 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;
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
(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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59781
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
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
59782
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
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
Unit
Currently occupied but
not known to be
occupied at the time of
listing
Currently unoccupied
and not known to be
occupied at the time of
listing
........................................
X
........................................
........................................
........................................
X
........................................
X
........................................
........................................
X
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
X
X
........................................
X
........................................
X
X
........................................
X
X
X
X
X
Currently occupied and
known to be occupied at
the time of listing
Parish/county
LOUISIANA
1 ..............................................
St. Tammany ..........................
........................................
MISSISSIPPI
2, Subunit A ............................
2, Subunit B ............................
3 ..............................................
4, Subunit A ............................
4, Subunit B ............................
5, Subunit A ............................
5, Subunit B ............................
6 ..............................................
7 ..............................................
8 ..............................................
9 ..............................................
10 ............................................
11 ............................................
12 ............................................
Harrison ..................................
Harrison ..................................
Jackson ..................................
Jackson ..................................
Jackson ..................................
Jackson ..................................
Jackson ..................................
Jackson ..................................
Jackson ..................................
Forrest ....................................
Forrest ....................................
Perry .......................................
Perry .......................................
Perry .......................................
Table 2 provides the approximate area
and ownership of each proposed critical
X
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
........................................
habitat unit. Hectare and acre values
were individually computer-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. AREA SIZES MAY NOT SUM DUE TO ROUNDING
Ownership
Unit
Parish/county
Total area
Federal
State
Private
....................................
667 ha (1,649 ac) ......
667 ha (1,649 ac).
24 ha (59 ac) .............
3 ha (7 ac) .................
....................................
133 ha (329 ac) .........
113 ha (279 ac) .........
133 ha (329 ac) .........
133
439
133
133
165
133
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
LOUISIANA
1 ................................
St. Tammany ............
....................................
MISSISSIPPI
2, Subunit A ..............
2, Subunit B ..............
3 ................................
4, Subunit A ..............
4, Subunit B ..............
5, Subunit A ..............
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Harrison
Harrison
Harrison
Jackson
Jackson
Jackson
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Jkt 223001
109 ha (269 ac) .........
436 ha (1,077 ac) ......
133 ha (329 ac) .........
....................................
52 ha (129 ac) ...........
....................................
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
ha
(329 ac).
(1,085 ac).
(329 ac).
(329 ac).
(408 ac).
(329 ac).
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
59783
TABLE 2—PROPOSED CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS WITH AREA ESTIMATES (HECTARES (HA) AND ACRES (AC)) AND LAND
OWNERSHIP FOR THE MISSISSIPPI GOPHER FROG. AREA SIZES MAY NOT SUM DUE TO ROUNDING—Continued
Ownership
Unit
Parish/county
Total area
Federal
State
Private
5, Subunit B ..............
6 ................................
7 ................................
8 ................................
9 ................................
10 ..............................
11 ..............................
12 ..............................
Jackson ....................
Jackson ....................
Jackson ....................
Forrest ......................
Forrest ......................
Perry .........................
Perry .........................
Perry .........................
....................................
133 ha (329 ac) .........
....................................
133 ha (329 ac) .........
131 ha (324 ac) .........
135 ha (334 ac) .........
129 ha (319 ac) .........
125 ha (309 ac) .........
....................................
....................................
116 ha (287 ac) .........
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
....................................
56 ha (138 ac) ...........
....................................
17 ha (42 ac) .............
....................................
2 ha (5 ac) .................
47 ha (116 ac) ...........
4 ha (10 ac) ...............
8 ha (20 ac) ...............
56 ha (138 ac).
133 ha (329 ac).
133 ha (329 ac).
133 ha (329 ac).
133 ha (329 ac).
182 ha (450 ac).
133 ha (329 ac).
133 ha (329 ac).
Total ..........................
All Parishes and
Counties.
1,516 ha (3,746 ac) ...
116 ha (287 ac) .........
1,207 ha (2,983 ac) ...
2,839 ha (7,015 ac).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
We present brief descriptions of all
units and reasons why they meet the
definition of critical habitat for the
Mississippi gopher frog, below.
Unit 1: St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana
Unit 1 encompasses 667 ha (1,649 ac)
on private lands in St. Tammany Parish,
Louisiana. This unit is located north
and south of State Hwy. 36,
approximately 3.1 km (1.9 mi) west of
State Hwy. 41 and the town of Hickory,
Louisiana. Unit 1 is not within the
geographic area occupied by the species
at the time of listing. It is currently
unoccupied; however, one of the ponds
in the unit is where gopher frogs were
last observed in Louisiana in 1965. We
believe this unit is essential for the
conservation of the species because it
provides additional habitat for
population expansion outside of the
core population areas in Mississippi.
Unit 1 consists of five ponds (ephemeral
wetland habitat) and their associated
uplands. If Mississippi gopher frogs are
translocated to the site, the five areas are
in close enough proximity to each other
that gopher frogs could move between
them. The uplands associated with the
ponds do not currently contain the
essential biological and physical
features of critical habitat; however, we
believe them to be restorable with
reasonable effort. We believe this unit
provides potential for establishing new
breeding ponds and metapopulation
structure which will support recovery of
the species. Maintaining these ponds as
suitable breeding habitat, into which
Mississippi gopher frogs could be
translocated, is essential to decrease the
risk of extinction of the species resulting
from stochastic events and to provide
for the species’ eventual recovery. This
unit is proposed as critical habitat
because it is essential for the
conservation of the species.
Unit 1 is currently managed as
industrial forest land. Threats to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
elements of the essential physical and
biological features of habitat for the
Mississippi gopher frog within this unit
include the potential of: hydrologic
changes resulting from ditches, or
adjacent highways and roads that could
alter the ecology of the ponds; wetland
degradation; random effects of drought
or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas,
water, electrical power, and sewer
easements; and agricultural and urban
and residential development (see also
discussion in Special Management
Considerations or Protection section).
Unit 2: Harrison County, Mississippi
Unit 2 comprises two subunits
encompassing 572 ha (1,413 ac) on
Federal and private lands in Harrison
County, Mississippi. This unit, between
U.S. Hwy. 49 and Old Hwy. 67, is
approximately 224 m (735 ft) northeast
of the Biloxi River. It is located
approximately 2.8 km (1.8 mi) east of
U.S. Hwy. 49 and approximately 2.3 km
(1.4 mi) west of Old Hwy. 67. Within
this unit, approximately 545 ha (1,347
ac) are in the DeSoto National Forest
and 27 ha (67 ac) are in private
ownership.
Subunit A
Unit 2, Subunit A encompasses 133
ha (329 ac) around the only breeding
pond (Glen’s Pond) known for the
Mississippi gopher frog when it was
listed in 2001; as a result, it is within
the geographic area of the species
occupied at the time of listing. In
addition, this subunit contains all
elements of the essential physical and
biological features of the species. The
majority of this subunit (109 ha (269 ac))
is on the DeSoto National Forest, with
the remainder of the subunit (24 ha (59
ac)) in private ownership. This subunit
is proposed as critical habitat because it
was occupied at the time of listing, is
currently occupied, and contains
sufficient primary constituent elements
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(ephemeral wetland habitat, upland
forested nonbreeding habitat, and
upland connectivity habitat) to support
life-history functions essential to the
conservation of the species.
Glen’s Pond and the habitat
surrounding it, consisting of forested
uplands used as nonbreeding habitat
and upland connectivity habitat
between breeding and nonbreeding
habitat, support the majority of the
Mississippi gopher frogs that currently
exist in the wild. Within Unit 2, Subunit
A, the Mississippi gopher frog and its
habitat may require special management
considerations or protection to address
potential adverse effects caused by: fire
suppression and low fire frequencies;
detrimental alterations in forestry
practices that could destroy
belowground soil structures such as
stump removal; hydrologic changes
resulting from ditches, and/or adjacent
highways and roads that could alter the
ecology of the breeding pond and
surrounding terrestrial habitat; wetland
degradation; random effects of drought
or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas,
water, electrical power, and sewer
easements; and agricultural and urban
development.
Subunit B
Unit 2, Subunit B encompasses 439 ha
(1,084 ac) adjacent to Subunit A and the
area surrounding Glen’s Pond. The
majority of this subunit (436 ha (1,077
ac)) is on the DeSoto National Forest,
with the remainder of the subunit (3 ha
(7 ac)) in private ownership. This
subunit is not within the geographic
area of the species occupied at the time
of listing and is currently unoccupied.
However, we believe this subunit is
essential for the conservation of the
Mississippi gopher frog because it
consists of areas, within the dispersal
range of the Mississippi gopher frog
(from Subunit A), which we believe
provides potential for establishing new
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
59784
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
breeding ponds and metapopulation
structure that will protect the
Mississippi gopher frog from extinction.
This unoccupied area consists of three
ponds and their associated uplands on
the DeSoto National Forest. These
ponds have been named Reserve Pond,
Pony Ranch Pond, and New Pond
during ongoing recovery initiatives. The
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) is actively
managing this area to benefit the
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog.
Due to the low number of remaining
populations and severely restricted
range of the Mississippi gopher frog, the
species is at high risk of extirpation
from stochastic events, such as disease
or drought. Maintaining this area as
suitable habitat into which Mississippi
gopher frogs could be translocated is
essential to decrease the risk of
extinction of the species resulting from
stochastic events and provide for the
species’ eventual recovery. This subunit
is proposed as critical habitat because it
is essential for the conservation of the
species.
Within Unit 2, Subunit B, threats to
elements of the essential physical and
biological features of habitat for the
Mississippi gopher frog are: fire
suppression and low fire frequencies;
detrimental alterations in forestry
practices that could destroy
belowground soil structures such as
stump removal; hydrologic changes
resulting from ditches, and/or adjacent
highways and roads that could alter the
ecology of the breeding pond and
surrounding terrestrial habitat; wetland
degradation; random effects of drought
or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas,
water, electrical power, and sewer
easements; and agricultural and urban
development.
Unit 3: Harrison County, Mississippi
Unit 3 encompasses 133 ha (329 ac)
on Federal land in Harrison County,
Mississippi. This unit is located on the
DeSoto National Forest approximately
7.9 km (4.9 mi) east of the community
of Success at Old Hwy. 67 and 4 km (2.5
mi) south of Bethel Road.
Unit 3 is not within the geographic
range of the species occupied at the time
of listing and is currently unoccupied.
This area surrounds a pond on the
DeSoto National Forest given the name
of Carr Bridge Road Pond during
ongoing recovery initiatives when it was
selected as a Mississippi gopher frog
translocation site. The USFS is actively
managing this area to benefit the
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog.
Due to the low number of remaining
populations and severely restricted
range of the Mississippi gopher frog, the
species may be at risk of extirpation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
from stochastic events, such as disease
or drought. Maintaining this area as
suitable habitat into which Mississippi
gopher frogs could be translocated is
essential to decrease the potential risk of
extinction of the species resulting from
stochastic events and to provide for the
species’ eventual recovery. We believe
this area is essential for the conservation
of the Mississippi gopher frog because it
contains a potential breeding pond
surrounded by uplands which provide
habitat for future translocation of the
species in support of Mississippi gopher
frog recovery.
Within Unit 3, threats to the elements
of essential physical and biological
features of habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog are: fire suppression and
low fire frequencies; detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that
could destroy belowground soil
structures such as stump removal;
hydrologic changes resulting from
ditches, and/or adjacent highways and
roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; offroad vehicle use; gas, water, electrical
power, and sewer easements; and
agricultural and urban development.
Unit 4: Jackson County, Mississippi
Unit 4 encompasses 298 ha (736 ac)
on Federal and private land in Jackson
County, Mississippi. This unit borders
the north side of Interstate 10
approximately 1.1 km (0.7 mi) west of
State Hwy. 57. Within this unit,
approximately 52 ha (129 ac) are in the
Mississippi Sandhill Crane National
Wildlife Refuge and 246 ha (608 ac) are
in private ownership.
Subunit A
Unit 4, Subunit A encompasses 133
ha (329 ac) on private land. It is
currently occupied as a result of
translocation efforts conducted in 2004,
2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010;
however, it was not occupied at the time
of listing. We believe this subunit is
essential for the conservation of the
Mississippi gopher frog because of the
presence of a proven breeding pond (egg
masses have been deposited here in
2007 and 2010 by gopher frogs
translocated to the site) and its
associated uplands (upland forested
nonbreeding habitat and upland
connectivity habitat). We also believe
that metapopulation structure, which
will further protect the Mississippi
gopher frog from extinction, is possible
when the whole area of Unit 4 is
considered. The private owners of this
property are actively managing this area
to benefit the recovery of the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Mississippi gopher frog. Due to the low
number of remaining populations and
severely restricted range of the
Mississippi gopher frog, the species may
be at high risk of extirpation from
stochastic events, such as disease or
drought. Maintaining this area as
suitable habitat into which Mississippi
gopher frogs can continue to be
translocated is essential to decrease the
risk of extinction of the species resulting
from stochastic events and provide for
the species’ eventual recovery. This
subunit is proposed as critical habitat
because it is essential for the
conservation of the species.
Within Unit 4, Subunit A, threats to
elements of the essential physical and
biological features of habitat for the
Mississippi gopher frog are: fire
suppression and low fire frequencies;
detrimental alterations in forestry
practices that could destroy
belowground soil structures such as
stump removal; hydrologic changes
resulting from ditches, and/or adjacent
highways and roads that could alter the
ecology of the breeding pond and
surrounding terrestrial habitat; wetland
degradation; random effects of drought
or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas,
water, electrical power, and sewer
easements; and agricultural and urban
development.
Subunit B
Unit 4, Subunit B encompasses 165 ha
(408 ac) on Federal and private land
adjacent to Subunit A. The majority of
this subunit (113 ha (279 ac)) is on
private land, with the remainder of the
unit (52 ha (129 ac)) on the Mississippi
Sandhill Crane National Wildlife
Refuge. This subunit is not within the
geographic area of the species occupied
at the time of listing and is currently
unoccupied. However, we believe this
subunit is essential for the conservation
of the Mississippi gopher frog because it
consists of an area, within the dispersal
range of the Mississippi gopher frog
(from Subunit A), which we believe
provides potential for establishing new
breeding ponds and metapopulation
structure that will protect the
Mississippi gopher frog from extinction.
This unoccupied area consists of two
ponds and their associated uplands.
This area is actively managed to benefit
the recovery of the Mississippi gopher
frog. Due to the low number of
remaining populations and severely
restricted range of the Mississippi
gopher frog, the species may be at risk
of extirpation from stochastic events,
such as disease or drought. Maintaining
this area as suitable habitat is essential
to decrease the potential risk of
extinction of the species and provide for
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
the species’ eventual recovery. This
subunit is proposed as critical habitat
because it is essential for the
conservation of the species.
Within Unit 4, Subunit B, threats to
elements of the essential physical and
biological features of habitat for the
Mississippi gopher frog are: fire
suppression and low fire frequencies;
detrimental alterations in forestry
practices that could destroy
belowground soil structures such as
stump removal; hydrologic changes
resulting from ditches, and/or adjacent
highways and roads that could alter the
ecology of the breeding pond and
surrounding terrestrial habitat; wetland
degradation; random effects of drought
or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas,
water, electrical power, and sewer
easements; and agricultural and urban
development.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unit 5: Jackson County, Mississippi
Unit 5 encompasses 189 ha (467ac) on
private land in Jackson County,
Mississippi. This unit is located
approximately 10.6 km (6.6 mi) north of
Interstate 10. It is 124 m (407 ft) north
of Jim Ramsey Road and 5.7 km (3.6 mi)
west of the community of Vancleave
located near State Hwy. 57.
Subunit A
Unit 5, Subunit A encompasses 133
ha (329 ac) on private land. It is
currently occupied, but was not known
to be occupied at the time of listing.
This subunit contains a breeding site
where Mississippi gopher frogs were
discovered in 2004, subsequent to the
listing of the Mississippi gopher frog.
We believe this subunit is essential
for the conservation of the Mississippi
gopher frog because of the presence of
a proven breeding pond, designated
Mike’s Pond (ephemeral wetland
habitat), and its associated uplands
(upland forested nonbreeding habitat
and upland connectivity habitat). We
also believe that metapopulation
structure, which will further protect the
Mississippi gopher frog from extinction,
is possible when the whole area of Unit
5 is considered. The private owners of
this property are actively managing this
area to benefit the recovery of the
Mississippi gopher frog. Due to the low
number of remaining populations and
severely restricted range of the
Mississippi gopher frog, the species may
be at high risk of extirpation from
stochastic events, such as disease or
drought. Maintaining this area as
suitable habitat is essential to decrease
the risk of extinction of the species
resulting from stochastic events and
provide for the species’ eventual
recovery. This subunit is proposed as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
critical habitat because it is essential for
the conservation of the species.
Within Unit 5, Subunit A, threats to
elements of the essential physical and
biological features of habitat for the
Mississippi gopher frog are: fire
suppression and low fire frequencies;
detrimental alterations in forestry
practices that could destroy
belowground soil structures such as
stump removal; hydrologic changes
resulting from ditches, and/or adjacent
highways and roads that could alter the
ecology of the breeding pond and
surrounding terrestrial habitat; wetland
degradation; random effects of drought
or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas,
water, electrical power, and sewer
easements; and agricultural and urban
development.
Subunit B
Unit 5, Subunit B encompasses 56 ha
(138 ac) on private land adjacent to
Subunit A. This subunit is not within
the geographic area of the species
occupied at the time of listing and is
currently unoccupied. However, we
believe this subunit is essential for the
conservation of the Mississippi gopher
frog because it consists of an area,
within the dispersal range of the
Mississippi gopher frog (from Subunit
A), which we believe provides potential
for establishing a new breeding pond
and metapopulation structure that will
protect the Mississippi gopher frog from
extinction. This unoccupied area
consists of a single pond and its
associated uplands. This area is actively
managed to benefit the recovery of the
Mississippi gopher frog. Due to the low
number of remaining populations and
severely restricted range of the
Mississippi gopher frog, the species may
be at risk of extirpation from stochastic
events, such as disease or drought.
Maintaining this area as suitable habitat
is essential to decrease the potential risk
of extinction of the species and provide
for the species’ eventual recovery. This
subunit is proposed as critical habitat
because it is essential for the
conservation of the species.
Within Unit 5, Subunit B, threats to
elements of the essential physical and
biological features of habitat for the
Mississippi gopher frog are: fire
suppression and low fire frequencies;
detrimental alterations in forestry
practices that could destroy
belowground soil structures such as
stump removal; hydrologic changes
resulting from ditches, and/or adjacent
highways and roads that could alter the
ecology of the breeding pond and
surrounding terrestrial habitat; wetland
degradation; random effects of drought
or floods; off-road vehicle use; gas,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59785
water, electrical power, and sewer
easements; and agricultural and urban
development.
Unit 6: Jackson County, Mississippi
Unit 6 encompasses 133 ha (329 ac)
on Federal land in Jackson County,
Mississippi. This unit is located on the
Ward Bayou Wildlife Management Area
(WMA) approximately 4.8 km (3 mi)
northeast of State Hwy. 57 and the
community of Vancleave. This land is
owned by the Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and managed by the Mississippi
Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and
Parks (MDWFP).
Unit 6 is not within the geographic
range of the species occupied at the time
of listing and is currently unoccupied.
This area consists of a pond and its
associated uplands on the WMA and
has been given the name of Mayhaw
Pond during ongoing recovery
initiatives. We believe this area is
essential for the conservation of the
Mississippi gopher frog because it
contains elements of features essential
to the conservation of the species, a
potential breeding pond and the
surrounding uplands, that provide
habitat for future translocation of the
species in support of Mississippi gopher
frog recovery.
Unit 6 is being actively managed by
the Corps and MDWFP to benefit the
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog.
Due to the low number of remaining
populations and severely restricted
range of the Mississippi gopher frog, the
species may be at risk of extirpation
from stochastic events, such as disease
or drought. Maintaining this area of
suitable habitat, into which Mississippi
gopher frogs could be translocated, is
essential to decrease the potential risk of
extinction of the species and provide for
the species’ eventual recovery. This unit
is proposed as critical habitat because it
is essential for the conservation of the
species.
Within Unit 6, threats to elements of
the essential physical and biological
features of habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog are: fire suppression and
low fire frequencies; detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that
could destroy belowground soil
structures such as stump removal;
hydrologic changes resulting from
ditches, and/or adjacent highways and
roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; offroad vehicle use; gas, water, electrical
power, and sewer easements; and
agricultural and urban development.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
59786
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Unit 7: Jackson County, Mississippi
Unit 7 encompasses 133 ha (329 ac)
on State and private land in Jackson
County, Mississippi. This unit is located
approximately 4.2 km (2.6 mi) east of
the intersection of State Hwy. 63 and
State Hwy. 613; it is 3.8 km (2.4 mi)
west of the Escatawpa River, and 3.2 km
(2 mi) northeast of Helena, Mississippi.
The portion of this unit in State
ownership (116 ha (287 ac)) is 16th
section land held in trust by the State
of Mississippi as a local funding source
for education in Jackson County. The
local Jackson County School board has
jurisdiction and control of the land. The
balance of this unit is on private land
(17 ha (42 ac)).
Unit 7 is currently occupied, but was
not known to be occupied at the time of
listing. The area, discovered in 2004
subsequent to the listing of the
Mississippi gopher frog, contains a
breeding pond designated McCoy’s
Pond and associated uplands. We
believe this area is essential for the
conservation of the species because it
represents habitat naturally occupied by
the Mississippi gopher frog and will
support recovery of the species.
Currently, the State-owned portion of
the area is managed by the Mississippi
Forestry Commission for timber
production for the Jackson County
School Board. Due to the low number of
remaining populations and severely
restricted range of the Mississippi
gopher frog, it may be at high risk of
extirpation from stochastic events, such
as disease or drought. Maintaining this
area of currently occupied habitat for
Mississippi gopher frogs is essential to
decrease the risk of extinction of the
species and provide for the species’
eventual recovery. This unit is proposed
as critical habitat because it is essential
for the conservation of the species.
Within Unit 7, threats to elements of
the essential physical and biological
features of habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog are: fire suppression and
low fire frequencies; detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that
could destroy belowground soil
structures such as stump removal;
hydrologic changes resulting from
ditches, and/or adjacent highways and
roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; offroad vehicle use; gas, water, electrical
power, and sewer easements; and
agricultural and urban development.
Unit 8: Forrest County, Mississippi
Unit 8 encompasses 133 ha (329 ac)
on Federal land in Forrest County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
Mississippi. This unit is located on the
DeSoto National Forest approximately
1.9 km (1.2 mi) east of U.S. Hwy. 49,
approximately 1.7 km (1.1 mi) south of
Black Creek, and approximately 3.1 km
(1.9 mi) southeast of the community of
Brooklyn, Mississippi.
Unit 8 is not within the geographic
range of the species occupied at the time
of listing and is currently unoccupied.
This area consists of a pond and
associated uplands that have been
selected as a future Mississippi gopher
frog translocation site during ongoing
recovery initiatives. We believe this area
is essential for the conservation of the
Mississippi gopher frog because it
contains elements of features essential
to the conservation of the species, a
potential breeding pond and
surrounding uplands, that provide
habitat for future translocation of the
species in support of Mississippi gopher
frog recovery.
Unit 8 is being actively managed by
the USFS to benefit the recovery of the
Mississippi gopher frog. Due to the low
number of remaining populations and
severely restricted range of the
Mississippi gopher frog, the species may
be at risk of extirpation from stochastic
events, such as disease or drought.
Maintaining this area as suitable habitat,
into which Mississippi gopher frogs
could be translocated, is essential to
decrease the potential risk of extinction
of the species and provide for the
species’ eventual recovery. This unit is
proposed as critical habitat because it is
essential for the conservation of the
species.
Within Unit 8, threats to the elements
of essential physical and biological
features of habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog are: fire suppression and
low fire frequencies; detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that
could destroy belowground soil
structures such as stump removal;
hydrologic changes resulting from
ditches, and/or adjacent highways and
roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; offroad vehicle use; gas, water, electrical
power, and sewer easements; and
agricultural and urban development.
Unit 9: Forrest County, Mississippi
Unit 9 encompasses 133 ha (329 ac)
on Federal land and private land in
Forrest County, Mississippi. The
majority of this unit (131 ha (324)) is
located on the DeSoto National Forest
and the balance (2 ha (5 ac)) is located
on private land. This unit is located
approximately 3.9 km (2.4 mi) east of
U.S. Hwy. 49, approximately 4.3 km (2.7
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
mi) south of Black Creek, and
approximately 6.1 km (3.8 mi) southeast
of the community of Brooklyn,
Mississippi, at the Perry County line.
Unit 9 is not within the geographic
range of the species occupied at the time
of listing and is currently unoccupied.
This area consists of a pond and
associated uplands that have been
selected as a future Mississippi gopher
frog translocation site during ongoing
recovery initiatives. We believe this area
is essential for the conservation of the
Mississippi gopher frog because it
contains elements of features essential
to the conservation of the species, a
potential breeding pond and the
surrounding uplands, that provide
habitat for future translocation of the
species in support of Mississippi gopher
frog recovery.
Most of Unit 9 is being actively
managed by the USFS to benefit the
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog.
Due to the low number of remaining
populations and severely restricted
range of the Mississippi gopher frog, the
species may be at risk of extirpation
from stochastic events, such as disease
or drought. Maintaining this area as
suitable habitat, into which Mississippi
gopher frogs could be translocated, is
essential to decrease the potential risk of
extinction of the species and provide for
the species’ eventual recovery. This unit
is proposed as critical habitat because it
is essential for the conservation of the
species.
Within Unit 9, threats to elements of
the essential physical and biological
features of habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog are: fire suppression and
low fire frequencies; detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that
could destroy belowground soil
structures such as stump removal;
hydrologic changes resulting from
ditches, and/or adjacent highways and
roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; offroad vehicle use; gas, water, electrical
power, and sewer easements; and
agricultural and urban development.
Unit 10: Perry County, Mississippi
Unit 10 encompasses 182 ha (450 ac)
on Federal land and private land in
Perry County, Mississippi. The majority
of this unit (135 ha (334 ac) is located
on the DeSoto National Forest and the
remaining balance (47 ha (116 ac)) is
located on private land. This unit is
located at the intersection of Benndale
Road and Mars Hill Road,
approximately 2.6 km (1.6 mi)
northwest of the intersection of the
Perry County, Stone County, and George
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
County lines and approximately 7.2 km
(4.5 mi) north of State Hwy. 26.
Unit 10 is not within the geographic
range of the species occupied at the time
of listing and is currently unoccupied.
This area consists of two ponds and
their associated uplands that have been
selected as future Mississippi gopher
frog translocation sites during ongoing
recovery initiatives. It provides the
potential for establishing new breeding
ponds and metapopulation structure
that will protect the Mississippi gopher
frog from extinction. We believe this
area is essential for the conservation of
the Mississippi gopher frog because it
contains elements of features essential
to the conservation of the species, two
potential breeding ponds and their
surrounding uplands, that provide
habitat for future translocation of the
species in support of Mississippi gopher
frog recovery.
Most of Unit 10 is being actively
managed by the USFS to benefit the
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog.
Due to the low number of remaining
populations and severely restricted
range of the Mississippi gopher frog, the
species may be at high risk of
extirpation from stochastic events, such
as disease or drought. Maintaining this
area as suitable habitat, into which
Mississippi gopher frogs could be
translocated, is essential to decrease the
risk of extinction of the species and
provide for the species’ eventual
recovery. This unit is proposed as
critical habitat because it is essential for
the conservation of the species.
Within Unit 10, threats to elements of
the essential physical and biological
features of habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog are: fire suppression and
low fire frequencies; detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that
could destroy belowground soil
structures such as stump removal;
hydrologic changes resulting from
ditches, and/or adjacent highways and
roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; offroad vehicle use; gas, water, electrical
power, and sewer easements; and
agricultural and urban development.
Unit 11: Perry County, Mississippi
Unit 11 encompasses 133 ha (329 ac)
on Federal land and private land in
Perry County, Mississippi. The majority
of this unit (129 ha (319 ac)) is located
on the DeSoto National Forest and the
remaining balance (4 ha (10 ac)) is
located on private land. This unit
borders the north side of Benndale Road
northeast of the intersection of the Perry
County, Stone County, and George
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
59787
County lines, approximately 6.4 km (4
mi) north of State Hwy. 26.
Unit 11 is not within the geographic
range of the species occupied at the time
of listing and is currently unoccupied.
This area consists of a pond and
associated uplands that have been
selected as a future Mississippi gopher
frog translocation site during ongoing
recovery initiatives. We believe this area
is essential for the conservation of the
Mississippi gopher frog because it
contains features essential to the
conservation of the species, a potential
breeding pond and the surrounding
uplands, that provide habitat for future
translocation of the species in support
of Mississippi gopher frog recovery.
Most of Unit 11 is being actively
managed by the USFS to benefit the
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog.
Due to the low number of remaining
populations and severely restricted
range of the Mississippi gopher frog, the
species may be at risk of extirpation
from stochastic events, such as disease
or drought. Maintaining this area as
suitable habitat, into which Mississippi
gopher frogs could be translocated, is
essential to decrease the potential risk of
extinction of the species and provide for
the species’ eventual recovery. This unit
is proposed as critical habitat because it
is essential for the conservation of the
species.
Within Unit 11, threats to elements of
the essential physical and biological
features of habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog are: fire suppression and
low fire frequencies; detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that
could destroy belowground soil
structures such as stump removal;
hydrologic changes resulting from
ditches, and/or adjacent highways and
roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; offroad vehicle use; gas, water, electrical
power, and sewer easements; and
agricultural and urban development.
of listing and is currently unoccupied.
This area consists of a pond and its
associated uplands that have been
selected as a future Mississippi gopher
frog translocation site during ongoing
recovery initiatives. We believe this area
is essential for the conservation of the
Mississippi gopher frog because it
contains elements of features essential
to the conservation of the species, a
potential breeding pond and the
surrounding uplands, that provide
habitat for future translocation of the
species in support of Mississippi gopher
frog recovery.
Most of Unit 12 is being actively
managed by the USFS to benefit the
recovery of the Mississippi gopher frog.
Due to the low number of remaining
populations and severely restricted
range of the Mississippi gopher frog, the
species may be at risk of extirpation
from stochastic events such as disease
or drought. Maintaining this area as
suitable habitat into which Mississippi
gopher frogs could be translocated is
essential to decrease the potential risk of
extinction of the species and provide for
the species’ eventual recovery. This unit
is proposed as critical habitat because it
is essential for the conservation of the
species.
Within Unit 12, threats to elements of
the essential physical and biological
features of habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog are: fire suppression and
low fire frequencies; detrimental
alterations in forestry practices that
could destroy belowground soil
structures such as stump removal;
hydrologic changes resulting from
ditches, and/or adjacent highways and
roads that could alter the ecology of the
breeding pond and surrounding
terrestrial habitat; wetland degradation;
random effects of drought or floods; offroad vehicle use; gas, water, electrical
power, and sewer easements; and
agricultural and urban development.
Unit 12: Perry County, Mississippi
Unit 12 encompasses 133 ha (329 ac)
on Federal land and private land in
Perry County, Mississippi. The majority
of this unit (125 ha (309 ac)) is located
on the DeSoto National Forest and the
remaining balance (8 ha (20 ac)) is
located on private land. This unit is
located approximately 1.2 km (0.75 mi)
east of Mars Hill Road, approximately
3.9 km (2.4 mi) north of the intersection
of the Perry County, Stone County, and
George County lines, and approximately
10.2 km (6.4 mi) north of State Hwy. 26.
Unit 12 is not within the geographic
range of the species occupied at the time
Section 7 Consultation
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Effects of Critical Habitat Designation
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires
Federal agencies, including the Service,
to ensure that any action they fund,
authorize, or carry out is not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any endangered species or threatened
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat of such species. In
addition, section 7(a)(4) of the Act
requires Federal agencies to confer with
the Service on any agency action which
is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any species proposed to be
listed under the Act or result in the
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
59788
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat.
Decisions by the 5th and 9th Circuit
Courts of Appeals have invalidated our
definition of ‘‘destruction or adverse
modification’’ (50 CFR 402.02) (see
Gifford Pinchot Task Force v. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 378 F.3d 1059 (9th
Cir. 2004) and Sierra Club v. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 245 F.3d 434, 442
(5th Cir. 2001)), and we do not rely on
this regulatory definition when
analyzing whether an action is likely to
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat. Under the statutory provisions
of the Act, we determine destruction or
adverse modification on the basis of
whether, with implementation of the
proposed Federal action, the affected
critical habitat would continue to serve
its intended conservation role for the
species.
If a Federal action may affect a listed
species or its critical habitat, the
responsible Federal agency (action
agency) must enter into consultation
with us. Examples of actions that are
subject to the section 7 consultation
process are actions on State, tribal,
local, or private lands that require a
Federal permit (such as a permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) or a permit from the
Service under section 10 of the Act) or
that involve some other Federal action
(such as funding from the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, or the Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
Federal actions not affecting listed
species or critical habitat, and actions
on State, tribal, local or private lands
that are not federally funded or
authorized, do not require section 7
consultation.
As a result of section 7 consultation,
we document compliance with the
requirements of section 7(a)(2) through
our issuance of:
(1) A concurrence letter for Federal
actions that may affect, but are not
likely to adversely affect, listed species
or critical habitat; or
(2) A biological opinion for Federal
actions that may affect, or are likely to
adversely affect, listed species or critical
habitat.
When we issue a biological opinion
concluding that a project is likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species and/or destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat, we
provide reasonable and prudent
alternatives to the project, if any are
identifiable, that would avoid the
likelihood of jeopardy and/or
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat. We define ‘‘reasonable
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
and prudent alternatives’’ (at 50 CFR
402.02) as alternative actions identified
during consultation that:
(1) Can be implemented in a manner
consistent with the intended purpose of
the action,
(2) Can be implemented consistent
with the scope of the Federal agency’s
legal authority and jurisdiction,
(3) Are economically and
technologically feasible, and
(4) Would, in the Director’s opinion,
avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing the
continued existence of the listed species
and/or avoid the likelihood of
destroying or adversely modifying
critical habitat.
Reasonable and prudent alternatives
can vary from slight project
modifications to extensive redesign or
relocation of the project. Costs
associated with implementing a
reasonable and prudent alternative are
similarly variable.
Regulations at 50 CFR 402.16 require
Federal agencies to reinitiate
consultation on previously reviewed
actions in instances where we have
listed a new species or subsequently
designated critical habitat that may be
affected and the Federal agency has
retained discretionary involvement or
control over the action (or the agency’s
discretionary involvement or control is
authorized by law). Consequently,
Federal agencies may sometimes need to
request reinitiation of consultation with
us on actions for which formal
consultation has been completed, if
those actions with discretionary
involvement or control may affect
subsequently listed species or
designated critical habitat.
Application of the ‘‘Adverse
Modification’’ Standard
The key factor related to the adverse
modification determination is whether,
with implementation of the proposed
Federal action, the affected critical
habitat would continue to serve its
intended conservation role for the
species. Activities that may destroy or
adversely modify critical habitat are
those that alter the physical and
biological features to an extent that
appreciably reduces the conservation
value of critical habitat for the
Mississippi gopher frog. As discussed
above, the role of critical habitat is to
support life-history needs of the species
and provide for the conservation of the
species.
Section 4(b)(8) of the Act requires us
to briefly evaluate and describe, in any
proposed or final regulation that
designates critical habitat, activities
involving a Federal action that may
destroy or adversely modify such
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
habitat, or that may be affected by such
designation.
Activities that may affect critical
habitat, when carried out, funded, or
authorized by a Federal agency, should
result in consultation for the Mississippi
gopher frog. These activities include,
but are not limited to:
(1) Actions that would alter the
hydrology or water quality of
Mississippi gopher frog wetland
habitats. Such activities could include,
but are not limited to, discharge of fill
material; release of chemicals and/or
biological pollutants; clearcutting,
draining, ditching, grading, or bedding;
diversion or alteration of surface or
ground water flow into or out of a
wetland (i.e., due to roads, fire breaks,
impoundments, discharge pipes, etc.);
discharge or dumping of toxic
chemicals, silt, or other pollutants (i.e.,
sewage, oil, pesticides, and gasoline);
and use of vehicles within wetlands.
These activities could destroy
Mississippi gopher frog breeding sites,
reduce the hydrological regime
necessary for successful larval
metamorphosis, and/or eliminate or
reduce the habitat necessary for the
growth and reproduction, and affect the
prey base, of the Mississippi gopher
frog.
(2) Forestry management actions in
pine habitat that would significantly
alter the suitability of Mississippi
gopher frog terrestrial habitat. Such
activities could include, but are not
limited to, conversion of timber land to
another use; timber management
including clearcutting, site preparation
involving ground disturbance,
prescribed burning, and unlawful
pesticide application. These activities
could destroy or alter the uplands
necessary for the growth and
development of juvenile and adult
Mississippi gopher frogs.
(3) Actions that would significantly
fragment and isolate Mississippi gopher
frog wetland and upland habitats from
each other. Such activities could
include, but are not limited to,
constructing new structures or new
roads and converting forested habitat to
other uses. These activities could limit
or prevent the dispersal of Mississippi
gopher frogs from breeding sites to
upland habitat or vice versa due to
obstructions to movement caused by
structures, certain types of curbs,
increased traffic density, or inhospitable
habitat.
Exemptions
Application of Section 4(a)(3) of the Act
The Sikes Act Improvement Act of
1997 (Sikes Act) (16 U.S.C. 670a)
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
required each military installation that
includes land and water suitable for the
conservation and management of
natural resources to complete an
integrated natural resources
management plan (INRMP) by
November 17, 2001. An INRMP
integrates implementation of the
military mission of the installation with
stewardship of the natural resources
found on the base. Each INRMP
includes:
(1) An assessment of the ecological
needs on the installation, including the
need to provide for the conservation of
listed species;
(2) A statement of goals and priorities;
(3) A detailed description of
management actions to be implemented
to provide for these ecological needs;
and
(4) A monitoring and adaptive
management plan.
Among other things, each INRMP
must, to the extent appropriate and
applicable, provide for fish and wildlife
management; fish and wildlife habitat
enhancement or modification; wetland
protection, enhancement, and
restoration where necessary to support
fish and wildlife; and enforcement of
applicable natural resource laws.
The National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108–
136) amended the Act to limit areas
eligible for designation as critical
habitat. Specifically, section 4(a)(3)(B)(i)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(3)(B)(i))
now provides: ‘‘The Secretary shall not
designate as critical habitat any lands or
other geographic areas owned or
controlled by the Department of
Defense, or designated for its use, that
are subject to an integrated natural
resources management plan prepared
under section 101 of the Sikes Act (16
U.S.C. 670a), if the Secretary determines
in writing that such plan provides a
benefit to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation.’’
There are no Department of Defense
lands with a completed INRMP within
the proposed critical habitat
designation. Therefore, we are not
proposing exemption of any lands
owned or managed by the Department of
Defense from this designation of critical
habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog.
Exclusions
Application of Section 4(b)(2) of the Act
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act states that
the Secretary shall designate and make
revisions to critical habitat on the basis
of the best available scientific data after
taking into consideration the economic
impact, national security impact, and
any other relevant impact of specifying
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
any particular area as critical habitat.
The Secretary may exclude an area from
critical habitat if he determines that the
benefits of such exclusion outweigh the
benefits of specifying such area as part
of the critical habitat, unless he
determines, based on the best scientific
data available, that the failure to
designate such area as critical habitat
will result in the extinction of the
species. In making that determination,
the statute on its face, as well as the
legislative history, are clear that the
Secretary has broad discretion regarding
which factor(s) to use and how much
weight to give to any factor.
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
may exclude an area from designated
critical habitat based on economic
impacts, impacts on national security,
or any other relevant impacts. In
considering whether to exclude a
particular area from the designation, we
identify the benefits of including the
area in the designation, identify the
benefits of excluding the area from the
designation, and evaluate whether the
benefits of exclusion outweigh the
benefits of inclusion. If the analysis
indicates that the benefits of exclusion
outweigh the benefits of inclusion, the
Secretary may exercise his discretion to
exclude the area only if such exclusion
would not result in the extinction of the
species.
We have not proposed to exclude any
areas from critical habitat. However, the
final decision on whether to exclude
any areas will be based on the best
scientific data available at the time of
the final designation, including
information obtained during the
comment period and information about
the impacts of designation.
Exclusions Based on Economic Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider the economic impacts of
specifying any particular area as critical
habitat. In order to consider economic
impacts, we have prepared a draft
economic analysis (DEA) concerning
this proposed critical habitat
designation, which is available for
review and comment (see ADDRESSES).
This DEA was specifically drafted for
this revised proposed designation of
critical habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog. It represents a revision of
the previous DEA announced in the
Federal Register on June 1, 2010 (75 FR
77817).
Draft Economic Analysis
The purpose of the DEA is to identify
and analyze the potential economic
impacts associated with this proposed
critical habitat designation for the
Mississippi gopher frog. The DEA
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59789
separates conservation measures into
two distinct categories according to
‘‘without critical habitat’’ and ‘‘with
critical habitat’’ scenarios. The ‘‘without
critical habitat’’ scenario represents the
baseline for the analysis, considering
protections otherwise afforded to the
Mississippi gopher frog (e.g., under the
Federal listing and other Federal, State,
and local regulations). The ‘‘with
critical habitat’’ scenario describes the
incremental impacts specifically due to
designation of critical habitat for the
species. In other words, these
incremental conservation measures and
associated economic impacts would not
occur but for the designation.
Conservation measures implemented
under the baseline (without critical
habitat) scenario are described
qualitatively within the DEA, but
economic impacts associated with these
measures are not quantified. Economic
impacts are only quantified for
conservation measures implemented
specifically due to the designation of
critical habitat (i.e., incremental
impacts). For a further description of the
methodology of the analysis, see
Chapter 2, ‘‘Framework for the
Analysis,’’ of the DEA.
The DEA describes incremental
economic impacts associated with Unit
1 in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana,
using three different scenarios. This
approach was taken because most of the
estimated incremental impacts are
related to the lost development value in
Unit 1, considerable uncertainty existed
regarding the likelihood of a Federal
nexus for development activities there,
and potential existed for the Service to
recommend conservation measures if
consultation were to occur. Scenario 1
assumes the proposed development
within Unit 1 would avoid impacts to
jurisdictional wetlands and, as a result,
there would be no Federal nexus (no
Federal permit required) triggering
section 7 consultation regarding gopher
frog critical habitat. Scenario 2 assumes
the proposed development within Unit
1 would impact jurisdictional wetlands
and a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) Clean Water Act Section 404
permit (permit) would be required, thus
triggering section 7 consultation
regarding gopher frog critical habitat.
This scenario assumed that the Service
would work with the landowner to
establish conservation areas for the
gopher frog that would result in
management of 60 percent of the area
for gopher frog conservation and
recovery. Scenario 3 is similar to
Scenario 2 in that it assumes the
proposed development within Unit 1
would impact jurisdictional wetlands
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
59790
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
and a Corps permit would be required,
thus triggering section 7 consultation
regarding gopher frog critical habitat.
However, in this scenario, the
assumption was made that due to the
importance of Unit 1 to the conservation
and recovery of the species, the Service
would recommend no development
within the unit during consultation. The
DEA cost estimates for each scenario
were broken down into the following
categories: (1) Costs associated with
economic activities, including
development and forestry; (2) costs
associated with military activities; and
(3) costs associated with active species
management.
Applying a seven percent discount
rate, the DEA estimates that over the
next 20 years the total incremental
impacts of conservation activities for the
Mississippi gopher frog using Scenario
1 would be $102,000 ($9,610 in
annualized impacts); using Scenario 2,
it would be $21.8 million ($2.06 million
in annualized impacts); and using
Scenario 3, it would be $36.3 million
($3.43 million in annualized impacts).
The broad range in cost estimates stems
primarily from uncertainty regarding the
likelihood of a Federal nexus for
development activities in Unit 1, and
the conservation measures that the
Service may recommend if consultation
does occur. All economic impacts stem
from the administrative cost of
addressing adverse modification of
critical habitat during section 7
consultations. Incremental impacts
stemming from additional gopher frog
conservation measures requested by the
Service during section 7 consultation
are not expected in occupied areas
because project modifications that may
be needed to minimize impacts to the
species would coincidentally minimize
impacts to critical habitat. In
unoccupied areas, project modifications
resulting from consultation would be
considered incremental impacts of the
critical habitat designation.
The DEA also discusses the potential
economic benefits associated with the
designation of critical habitat. However,
because the Service believes that the
direct benefits of the designation are
best expressed in biological terms, this
analysis does not quantify or monetize
benefits; only a qualitative discussion of
economic benefits is provided.
As stated earlier, we are soliciting
data and comments from the public on
the DEA, as well as all aspects of the
proposed rule and our amended
required determinations. We may revise
the rule or supporting documents to
incorporate or address information we
receive during the public comment
period. In particular, we may exclude an
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
area from critical habitat if we
determine that the benefits of excluding
the area outweigh the benefits of
including the area, provided the
exclusion will not result in the
extinction of this species.
Exclusions Based on National Security
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider whether there are lands owned
or managed by the Department of
Defense where a national security
impact might exist. The Mississippi
Army National Guard conducts training
in an area of the DeSoto National Forest
where Units 10, 11, and 12 are located.
This training is authorized by a Special
Use Permit with the USFS and the lands
covered by the permit are open to the
public for all lawful purposes. The
USFS manages this property as part of
a Habitat Management Area for redcockaded woodpeckers and, as a result,
there are certain limitations to training
activities in this area. In preparing this
proposal, we have determined that
lands within the proposed designation
of critical habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog are not owned or managed
by the Department of Defense.
Additionally, we anticipate no impact to
national security because training
limitations are already in place for the
endangered red-cockaded woodpecker.
Consequently, the Secretary does not
propose to exert his discretion to
exclude any areas from the final
designation based on impacts to
national security. However, we did
receive a request to exclude this area
during the comment period for the
previously published proposed rule.
Therefore, if anyone has information on
why this property, or any property
owned or managed by Department of
Defense, should be excluded under
Section 4(b)(2) of the Act we encourage
the submission of comments as
described above under the Public
Comments section of this proposed rule.
Exclusions Based on Other Relevant
Impacts
Under section 4(b)(2) of the Act, we
consider any other relevant impacts, in
addition to economic impacts and
impacts on national security. We
consider a number of factors, including
whether the landowners have developed
any HCPs or other management plans
for the area, or whether there are
conservation partnerships that would be
encouraged by designation of, or
exclusion from, critical habitat. In
addition, we look at any tribal issues,
and consider the government-togovernment relationship of the United
States with tribal entities. We also
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
consider any social impacts that might
occur because of the designation.
In preparing this proposed rule, we
have determined that there are currently
no HCPs or other management plans for
the Mississippi gopher frog, and the
proposed designation does not include
any tribal lands or trust resources. We
anticipate no impact on tribal lands,
partnerships, or HCPs from this
proposed critical habitat designation.
Accordingly, the Secretary does not
propose to exert his discretion to
exclude any areas from the final
designation based on other relevant
impacts.
Peer Review
In accordance with our joint policy
published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek
the expert opinions of at least three
appropriate and independent specialists
regarding this proposed rule. The
purpose of peer review is to ensure that
our critical habitat designation is based
on scientifically sound data,
assumptions, and analyses. We have
invited these peer reviewers to comment
during this public comment period on
our specific assumptions and
conclusions in this proposed
designation of critical habitat.
We will consider all comments and
information received during this
comment period on this proposed rule,
as well as those comments received
during the comment period for the
previous proposed rule, during
preparation of a final determination.
Accordingly, the final decision may
differ from this proposal.
Public Hearings
Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for
one or more public hearings on this
proposal, if requested. Requests must be
received within 45 days of the
publication of this proposed rule in the
Federal Register. Such requests must be
sent to the address shown in FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We will
schedule public hearings on this
proposal, if any are requested, and
announce the dates, times, and places of
those hearings, as well as how to obtain
reasonable accommodations, in the
Federal Register and local newspapers
at least 15 days before the hearing.
Required Determinations—Amended
In our June 3, 2010, proposed rule (75
FR 31387), we indicated that we would
defer our determination of compliance
with several statutes until our draft
economic analysis was available. In this
revision of the proposed designation of
critical habitat for Mississippi gopher
frog, we have made use of the
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
information in our draft economic
analysis in making our determination
that this proposed rule is in compliance
with the statutes and Executive Orders
detailed below.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Regulatory Planning and Review—
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that this rule is
not significant and has not reviewed
this proposed rule under Executive
Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and
Review). OMB bases its determination
upon the following four criteria:
(1) Whether the rule will have an
annual effect of $100 million or more on
the economy or adversely affect an
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of the
government.
(2) Whether the rule will create
inconsistencies with other Federal
agencies’ actions.
(3) Whether the rule will materially
affect entitlements, grants, user fees,
loan programs, or the rights and
obligations of their recipients.
(4) Whether the rule raises novel legal
or policy issues.
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.)
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), as amended
by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA; 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
whenever an agency is required to
publish a notice of rulemaking for any
proposed or final rule, it must prepare
and make available for public comment
a regulatory flexibility analysis that
describes the effects of the rule on small
entities (i.e., small businesses, small
organizations, and small government
jurisdictions). However, no regulatory
flexibility analysis is required if the
head of an agency certifies the rule will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The SBREFA amended the RFA
to require Federal agencies to provide a
certification statement of the factual
basis for certifying that the rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Based on our DEA of the proposed
designation, we provide our analysis for
determining whether the proposed rule
would result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Based on comments we receive
during the open comment period, we
may revise this determination as part of
a final rulemaking.
According to the Small Business
Administration, small entities include
small organizations such as
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
independent nonprofit organizations;
small governmental jurisdictions,
including school boards and city and
town governments that serve fewer than
50,000 residents; and small businesses
(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses
include manufacturing and mining
concerns with fewer than 500
employees, wholesale trade entities
with fewer than 100 employees, retail
and service businesses with less than $5
million in annual sales, general and
heavy construction businesses with less
than $27.5 million in annual business,
special trade contractors doing less than
$11.5 million in annual business, and
agricultural businesses with annual
sales less than $750,000. To determine
if potential economic impacts to these
small entities are significant, we
considered the types of activities that
might trigger regulatory impacts under
this designation as well as types of
project modifications that may result. In
general, the term ‘‘significant economic
impact’’ is meant to apply to a typical
small business firm’s business
operations.
To determine if this proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
Mississippi gopher frog would affect a
substantial number of small entities, we
considered the number of small entities
affected within particular types of
economic activities, such as timber
operations, and residential and
commercial development, along with
the accompanying infrastructure
associated with such projects, including
road, storm water drainage, and bridge
and culvert construction and
maintenance. In order to determine
whether it is appropriate for our agency
to certify that this rule would not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, we
considered each industry or category
individually. In estimating the numbers
of small entities potentially affected, we
also considered whether their activities
have any Federal involvement. Critical
habitat designation will not affect
activities that do not have any Federal
involvement; designation of critical
habitat only affects activities conducted,
funded, permitted, or authorized by
Federal agencies.
If we finalize this proposed critical
habitat designation, Federal agencies
must consult with us under section 7 of
the Act if their activities may affect
designated critical habitat. In areas
where the Mississippi gopher frog is
present, Federal agencies are already
required to consult with us under
section 7 of the Act, due to the
endangered status of the species.
Consultations to avoid the destruction
or adverse modification of critical
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59791
habitat would be incorporated into the
same consultation process.
In the DEA, we evaluated the
potential economic effects on small
entities resulting from implementation
of conservation actions related to the
proposed designation of critical habitat
for the Mississippi gopher frog. The
Service and the action agency are the
only entities with direct compliance
costs associated with this proposed
critical habitat designation, although
small entities may participate in section
7 consultation as a third party. It is,
therefore, possible that the small entities
may spend additional time considering
critical habitat during section 7
consultation for the gopher frog. The
DEA indicates that the incremental
impacts potentially incurred by small
entities are limited to development
activities on Tradition Properties in
Subunits 2a and 2b (where 10 acres of
proposed critical habitat overlap a
planning area for a large-scale
development), and potential future
development within 1,649-acre Unit 1
owned by four small businesses and an
individual. The five small businesses,
considered small Land Subdividers,
represent approximately 3.9 percent of
the total (129 small businesses in this
sector) small Land Subdividers within
the counties containing proposed
critical habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog. Incremental costs of gopher
frog critical habitat to Tradition
Properties are anticipated to result in an
annualized impact of $127 (which
would represent less than 0.01 percent
of Tradition Properties’ average annual
revenues). Annualized impacts to the
four small businesses in Unit 1were
evaluated according to the three
Scenarios described above in the Draft
Economic Analysis section. Under
Scenario 1, there would be no impact to
small businesses. Under Scenario 2, an
impact of $2.05 million was calculated,
approximately 28.6 percent of annual
revenues; under Scenario 3, an impact
of $3.43 million was calculated,
approximately 47.8 percent of annual
revenues.
Our analysis constitutes an evaluation
of not only potentially directly affected
parties, but those also potentially
indirectly affected. Under the RFA and
following recent case law, we are only
required to evaluate the direct effects of
a regulation to determine compliance.
Since the regulatory effect of critical
habitat is through section 7 of the Act
which applies only to Federal agencies,
we have determined that only Federal
agencies are directly affected by this
rulemaking. Other entities, such as
small businesses, are only indirectly
affected. However, to better understand
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
59792
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
the potential effects of a designation of
critical habitat, we frequently evaluate
the potential impact to those entities
that may be indirectly affected, as was
the case for this rulemaking. In doing so,
we focus on the specific areas being
designated as critical habitat and
compare the number of small business
entities potentially affected in that area
with other small business entities in the
regional area, versus comparing the
entities in the area of designation with
entities nationally—which is more
commonly done. This results in an
estimation of a higher proportion of
small businesses potentially affected. In
this rulemaking, we calculate that the
proportion of small businesses
potentially affected is 3.9 percent of
those regionally. If we were to calculate
that value based on the proportion
nationally, then our estimate would be
significantly lower than 1 percent.
Following our evaluation of potential
effects to small business entities from
this rulemaking, we do not believe that
the 5 small businesses or 3.9 percent of
the small businesses in the affected
sector represents a substantial number.
However, we recognize that the
potential effects to these small
businesses under Scenarios 2 and 3 may
be significant. We will further evaluate
the potential effects to these small
businesses as we develop our final
rulemaking.
In summary, we have considered
whether this proposed designation
would result in a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Information for this analysis
was gathered from the Small Business
Administration, stakeholders, and the
Service. For the reasons discussed
above, and based on currently available
information, we certify that if
promulgated, the proposed designation
would not directly have a significant
effect on a substantial number of small
business entities. Therefore, an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required. However, as we develop the
final rule we will further evaluate the
potential indirect effects on this
designation on small business entities.
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use—
Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211 (Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use) requires agencies
to prepare Statements of Energy Effects
when undertaking certain actions. Based
on an analysis of areas included in this
proposal, we do not expect the
designation of this proposed critical
habitat to significantly affect energy
supplies, distribution, or use. Therefore,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
this action is not a significant energy
action, and no Statement of Energy
Effects is required.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2
U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)
In accordance with the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.), we make the following findings:
(1) This rule will not produce a
Federal mandate. In general, a Federal
mandate is a provision in legislation,
statute, or regulation that would impose
an enforceable duty upon State, local, or
Tribal governments, or the private
sector, and includes both ‘‘Federal
intergovernmental mandates’’ and
‘‘Federal private sector mandates.’’
These terms are defined in 2 U.S.C.
658(5)–(7). ‘‘Federal intergovernmental
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon State, local, or tribal
governments,’’ with two exceptions. It
excludes ‘‘a condition of Federal
assistance.’’ It also excludes ‘‘a duty
arising from participation in a voluntary
Federal program,’’ unless the regulation
‘‘relates to a then-existing Federal
program under which $500,000,000 or
more is provided annually to State,
local, and tribal governments under
entitlement authority,’’ if the provision
would ‘‘increase the stringency of
conditions of assistance’’ or ‘‘place caps
upon, or otherwise decrease, the Federal
Government’s responsibility to provide
funding,’’ and the State, local, or tribal
governments ‘‘lack authority’’ to adjust
accordingly. At the time of enactment,
these entitlement programs were:
Medicaid; Aid for Families with
Dependent Children work programs;
Child Nutrition; Food Stamps; Social
Services Block Grants; Vocational
Rehabilitation State Grants; Foster Care,
Adoption Assistance, and Independent
Living; Family Support Welfare
Services; and Child Support
Enforcement. ‘‘Federal private sector
mandate’’ includes a regulation that
‘‘would impose an enforceable duty
upon the private sector, except (i) a
condition of Federal assistance or (ii) a
duty arising from participation in a
voluntary Federal program.’’
The designation of critical habitat
does not impose a legally binding duty
on non-Federal government entities or
private parties. Under the Act, the only
regulatory effect is that Federal agencies
must ensure that their actions do not
destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat under section 7. While nonFederal entities that receive Federal
funding, assistance, or permits, or that
otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency. Furthermore, to the
extent that non-Federal entities are
indirectly impacted because they
receive Federal assistance or participate
in a voluntary Federal aid program, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would
not apply; nor would critical habitat
shift the costs of the large entitlement
programs listed above onto State
governments.
(2) We do not believe that this rule
will significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because the
Mississippi gopher frog occurs primarily
on Federal and privately owned lands.
None of these government entities fit the
definition of ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ Therefore, a Small
Government Agency Plan is not
required.
Takings—Executive Order 12630
In accordance with E.O. 12630
(Government Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Private
Property Rights), we have analyzed the
potential takings implications of
designating critical habitat for the
Mississippi gopher frog in a takings
implications assessment. The takings
implications assessment concludes that
this designation of critical habitat for
the Mississippi gopher frog does not
pose significant takings implications for
lands within or affected by the
designation. Critical habitat designation
does not affect landowner actions that
do not require Federal funding or
permits, nor does it preclude
development of habitat conservation
programs or issuance of incidental take
permits to permit actions that do require
Federal funding or permits to go
forward.
Federalism—Executive Order 13132
In accordance with E. O. 13132
(Federalism), this proposed rule does
not have significant Federalism effects.
A Federalism assessment is not
required. In keeping with Department of
the Interior and Department of
Commerce policy, we requested
information from, and coordinated
development of, this proposed critical
habitat designation with appropriate
State resource agencies in Louisiana and
Mississippi. The designation of critical
habitat in areas currently occupied by
the Mississippi gopher frog imposes no
additional restriction to those currently
in place and, therefore, has little
incremental impact on State and local
governments and their activities. The
designation may have some benefit to
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
these governments because the areas
that contain the physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the species are more clearly defined,
and the elements of the features
necessary to the conservation of the
species are specifically identified. This
information does not alter where and
what federally sponsored activities may
occur. However, it may assist local
governments in long-range planning
(rather than having them wait for caseby-case section 7 consultations to
occur).
Where State and local governments
require approval or authorization from a
Federal agency for actions that may
affect critical habitat, consultation
under section 7(a)(2) would be required.
While non-Federal entities that receive
Federal funding, assistance, or permits,
or that otherwise require approval or
authorization from a Federal agency for
an action, may be indirectly impacted
by the designation of critical habitat, the
legally binding duty to avoid
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat rests squarely on the
Federal agency.
Civil Justice Reform—Executive Order
12988
In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil
Justice Reform), the Office of the
Solicitor has determined that the rule
does not unduly burden the judicial
system and that it meets the
requirements of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of the Order. We have proposed
designating critical habitat in
accordance with the provisions of the
Act. This proposed rule uses standard
property descriptions and identifies the
elements of physical and biological
features essential to the conservation of
the Mississippi gopher frog within the
designated areas to assist the public in
understanding the habitat needs of the
species.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
This rule does not contain any new
collections of information that require
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). This rule will not impose
recordkeeping or reporting requirements
on State or local governments,
individuals, businesses, or
organizations. An agency may not
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
required to respond to, a collection of
information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
National Environmental Policy Act (42
U.C.C. 4321 et seq.)
It is our position that, outside the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Tenth Circuit, we do not need to
prepare environmental analyses
pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) in connection with designating
critical habitat under the Act. We
published a notice outlining our reasons
for this determination in the Federal
Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR
49244). This position was upheld by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit (Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48
F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995), cert. denied
516 U.S. 1042 (1996)).
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders
12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1,
1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we
publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address
readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than
jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and
sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever
possible.
If you feel that we have not met these
requirements, send us comments by one
of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To
better help us revise the rule, your
comments should be as specific as
possible. For example, you should tell
us the numbers of the sections or
paragraphs that are unclearly written,
which sections or sentences are too
long, the sections where you feel lists or
tables would be useful, etc.
Government-to-Government
Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President’s
memorandum of April 29, 1994,
(Government-to-Government Relations
with Native American Tribal
Governments; (59 FR 22951)), Executive
Order 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments), and the Department of
Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we
readily acknowledge our responsibility
to communicate meaningfully with
recognized Federal Tribes on a
government-to-government basis. In
accordance with Secretarial Order 3206
of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust
Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge
our responsibilities to work directly
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
59793
with tribes in developing programs for
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that
tribal lands are not subject to the same
controls as Federal public lands, to
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and
to make information available to tribes.
We have determined that there are no
tribal lands that were occupied by the
Mississippi gopher frog at the time of
listing that contain the features essential
for the conservation of the species, and
no tribal lands unoccupied by the
Mississippi gopher frog that are
essential for the conservation of the
species. Therefore, we are not proposing
to designate critical habitat for the
Mississippi gopher frog on tribal lands.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited
in this rulemaking is available on the
Internet at https://www.regulations.gov
and upon request from the Mississippi
Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Author
The primary author of this package is
Linda LaClaire of the Mississippi Fish
and Wildlife Office.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species,
Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to further
amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, as proposed to be amended
at 75 FR 31387, June 3, 2010, as follows:
PART 17—ENDANGERED AND
THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
1. The authority citation for part 17
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 17.95(d), revise the entry for
‘‘Mississippi gopher frog’’ (Rana sevosa)
in the same alphabetical order as the
species appears in § 17.11(h), to read as
follows:
§ 17.95
Critical habitat—fish and wildlife.
*
*
*
*
(d) Amphibians.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Mississippi gopher frog (Rana sevosa)
(1) Critical habitat units are depicted
for St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, and
Forrest, Harrison, Jackson, and Perry
Counties in Mississippi, on the maps
below.
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
59794
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(2) Within these areas, the primary
constituent elements of the physical and
biological features essential to the
conservation of the Mississippi gopher
frog consist of three components:
(i) 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 hectares (<1
to 10 acres), ephemeral, and acidic.
Specific conditions necessary in
breeding ponds to allow for successful
reproduction of Mississippi gopher frogs
are:
(A) An open canopy with emergent
herbaceous vegetation for egg
attachment;
(B) An absence of large, predatory fish
that prey on frog larvae;
(C) Water quality such that frogs, their
eggs, or larvae are not exposed to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
pesticides or chemicals and sediment
associated with road runoff; and
(D) Surface water that lasts for a
minimum of 195 days during the
breeding season to allow a sufficient
period for larvae to hatch, mature, and
metamorphose.
(ii) 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; and
(iii) Primary Constituent Element 3—
Upland connectivity habitat. Accessible
upland habitat between breeding and
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
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.
(3) Critical habitat does not include
manmade structures (such as buildings,
aqueducts, runways, roads, and other
paved areas) and the land on which they
are located existing within the legal
boundaries on the effective date of this
rule.
(4) Critical habitat unit maps. Maps
were developed from USGS 7.5′
quadrangles, and critical habitat units
were then mapped using Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates.
(5) Note: Index Map (Map 1) follows:
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
59795
EP27SE11.000
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(6) Unit 1: St. Tammany Parish,
Louisiana
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 1: St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana]
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 1: St. Tammany
Parish, Louisiana, follows:
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
EP27SE11.001
59796
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
59797
(ii) [Reserved for textual description
of Unit 2, Subunit B: Harrison County,
Mississippi]
(iii) Note: Map depicting Unit 2 is
provided at paragraph (8)(ii) of this
entry.
(8) Unit 3: Harrison County,
Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 3: Harrison County, Mississippi]
(ii) Note: Map of Units 2 and 3
follows:
(9) Unit 4: Jackson County,
Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 4, Subunit A: Jackson County,
Mississippi]
(ii) [Reserved for textual description
of Unit 4, Subunit B: Jackson County,
Mississippi]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
EP27SE11.002
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(7) Unit 2: Harrison County,
Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 2, Subunit A: Harrison County,
Mississippi]
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(iii) Note: Map depicting Unit 4 is
provided at paragraph (11)(ii) of this
entry.
(10) Unit 5: Jackson County,
Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit5, Subunit A: Jackson County,
Mississippi]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
(ii) [Reserved for textual description
of Unit5, Subunit B: Jackson County,
Mississippi]
(iii) Note: Map depicting Unit 5 is
provided at paragraph (11)(ii) of this
entry.
(11) Unit 6: Jackson County,
Mississippi.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 6: Jackson County, Mississippi]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 4: Jackson
County, Mississippi; Unit 5: Jackson
County, Mississippi; and Unit 6: Jackson
County, Mississippi follows:
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
EP27SE11.003
59798
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 7: Jackson County, Mississippi]
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 7: Jackson
County, Mississippi follows:
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
EP27SE11.004
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(12) Unit 7: Jackson County,
Mississippi.
59799
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(13) Unit 8: Forrest County,
Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 8: Forrest County, Mississippi]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
(ii) Note: Map depicting Unit 8 is
provided at paragraph (14)(ii) of this
entry.
(14) Unit 9: Forrest County,
Mississippi.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4725
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 9: Forrest County, Mississippi]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 8: Forrest
County, Mississippi and Unit 9: Forrest
County, Mississippi follows:
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
EP27SE11.005
59800
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
(16) Unit 11: Perry County,
Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 11: Perry County, Mississippi]
(ii) Note: Map depicting Unit 11 is
provided at paragraph (17)(ii) of this
entry.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
(17) Unit 12: Perry County,
Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 12: Perry County, Mississippi]
(ii) Note: Map of Unit 10, Perry
County, Mississippi; Unit 11, Perry
County, Mississippi; and Unit 12, Perry
County, Mississippi follows:
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
EP27SE11.006
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
(15) Unit 10: Perry County,
Mississippi.
(i) [Reserved for textual description of
Unit 10: Perry County, Mississippi]
(ii) Note: Map depicting Unit 10 is
provided at paragraph (17)(ii) of this
entry.
59801
59802
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 187 / Tuesday, September 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules
*
*
Dated: September 12, 2011.
Rachel Jacobson,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and
Wildlife and Parks.
*
[FR Doc. 2011–24046 Filed 9–26–11; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
BILLING CODE 4310–55–C
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:53 Sep 26, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\27SEP2.SGM
27SEP2
Agencies
[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....