[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59774-59802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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: http://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 
http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any 
personal information you provide us (see Public Comments section below 
for more information).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Ricks, Field Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Fish and Wildlife Office, 6578 
Dogwood 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 http://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 http://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 http://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......................  ........................  ........................                        X
4, Subunit A...............................  Jackson......................  ........................                        X   ........................
4, Subunit B...............................  Jackson......................  ........................  ........................                        X
5, Subunit A...............................  Jackson......................  ........................                        X   ........................
5, Subunit B...............................  Jackson......................  ........................  ........................                        X
6..........................................  Jackson......................  ........................  ........................                        X
7..........................................  Jackson......................  ........................                        X   ........................
8..........................................  Forrest......................  ........................  ........................                        X
9..........................................  Forrest......................  ........................  ........................                        X
10.........................................  Perry........................  ........................  ........................                        X
11.........................................  Perry........................  ........................  ........................                        X
12.........................................  Perry........................  ........................  ........................                        X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 2 provides the approximate area and ownership of each 
proposed critical 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            LOUISIANA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.................................  St. Tammany..........  ................................  ................................  667 ha (1,649 ac)...............  667 ha (1,649 ac).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           MISSISSIPPI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2, Subunit A......................  Harrison.............  109 ha (269 ac).................  ................................  24 ha (59 ac)...................  133 ha (329 ac).
2, Subunit B......................  Harrison.............  436 ha (1,077 ac)...............  ................................  3 ha (7 ac).....................  439 ha (1,085 ac).
3.................................  Harrison.............  133 ha (329 ac).................  ................................  ................................  133 ha (329 ac).
4, Subunit A......................  Jackson..............  ................................  ................................  133 ha (329 ac).................  133 ha (329 ac).
4, Subunit B......................  Jackson..............  52 ha (129 ac)..................  ................................  113 ha (279 ac).................  165 ha (408 ac).
5, Subunit A......................  Jackson..............  ................................  ................................  133 ha (329 ac).................  133 ha (329 ac).

[[Page 59783]]

 
5, Subunit B......................  Jackson..............  ................................  ................................  56 ha (138 ac)..................  56 ha (138 ac).
6.................................  Jackson..............  133 ha (329 ac).................  ................................  ................................  133 ha (329 ac).
7.................................  Jackson..............  ................................  116 ha (287 ac).................  17 ha (42 ac)...................  133 ha (329 ac).
8.................................  Forrest..............  133 ha (329 ac).................  ................................  ................................  133 ha (329 ac).
9.................................  Forrest..............  131 ha (324 ac).................  ................................  2 ha (5 ac).....................  133 ha (329 ac).
10................................  Perry................  135 ha (334 ac).................  ................................  47 ha (116 ac)..................  182 ha (450 ac).
11................................  Perry................  129 ha (319 ac).................  ................................  4 ha (10 ac)....................  133 ha (329 ac).
12................................  Perry................  125 ha (309 ac).................  ................................  8 ha (20 ac)....................  133 ha (329 ac).
                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................  All Parishes and       1,516 ha (3,746 ac).............  116 ha (287 ac).................  1,207 ha (2,983 ac).............  2,839 ha (7,015 ac).
                                     Counties.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
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 
(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

[[Page 59784]]

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 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; off-road 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 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

[[Page 59785]]

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.

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 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, 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; off-road vehicle use; gas, water, 
electrical power, and sewer easements; and agricultural and urban 
development.

[[Page 59786]]

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; off-road 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, 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; off-road 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 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; off-road 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

[[Page 59787]]

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; off-road 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 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; off-road 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 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; off-road vehicle use; gas, water, 
electrical power, and sewer easements; and agricultural and urban 
development.

Effects of Critical Habitat Designation

Section 7 Consultation

    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

[[Page 59788]]

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 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 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)

[[Page 59789]]

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 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 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

[[Page 59790]]

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 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 red-cockaded 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-to-
government relationship of the United States with tribal entities. We 
also consider any social impacts that might occur because of the 
designation.
    In preparing this proposed rule, we have determined that there are 
currently no 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

[[Page 59791]]

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.

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 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 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

[[Page 59792]]

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, 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 non-Federal entities that receive 
Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that otherwise require 
approval or authorization from a Federal agency for an action, may be 
indirectly impacted by the designation of critical habitat, the legally 
binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse modification of critical 
habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency. Furthermore, to the 
extent that non-Federal entities are indirectly impacted because they 
receive Federal assistance or participate in a voluntary Federal aid 
program, the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act would not apply; nor would 
critical habitat shift the costs of the large entitlement programs 
listed above onto State governments.
    (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

[[Page 59793]]

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 case-by-case section 7 
consultations to occur).
    Where State and local governments require approval or authorization 
from a Federal agency for actions that may affect critical habitat, 
consultation under section 7(a)(2) would be required. While non-Federal 
entities that receive Federal funding, assistance, or permits, or that 
otherwise require approval or authorization from a Federal agency for 
an action, may be indirectly impacted by the designation of critical 
habitat, the legally binding duty to avoid destruction or adverse 
modification of critical habitat rests squarely on the Federal agency.

Civil Justice Reform--Executive Order 12988

    In accordance with E.O. 12988 (Civil Justice Reform), the Office of 
the Solicitor has determined that the rule does not unduly burden the 
judicial system and that it meets the requirements of sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of the Order. We have proposed designating critical habitat in 
accordance with the provisions of the Act. This proposed rule uses 
standard property descriptions and identifies the 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.

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.

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


Sec.  17.95  Critical habitat--fish and wildlife.

* * * * *
    (d) Amphibians.
* * * * *
Mississippi gopher frog (Rana sevosa)
    (1) Critical habitat units are depicted for St. Tammany Parish, 
Louisiana, and Forrest, Harrison, Jackson, and Perry Counties in 
Mississippi, on the maps below.

[[Page 59794]]

    (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 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 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

[[Page 59795]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE11.000


[[Page 59796]]


    (6) Unit 1: St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 1: St. Tammany 
Parish, Louisiana]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 1: St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE11.001
    

[[Page 59797]]


    (7) Unit 2: Harrison County, Mississippi.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 2, Subunit A: 
Harrison County, Mississippi]
    (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:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE11.002
    
    (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]

[[Page 59798]]

    (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]
    (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.
    (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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE11.003


[[Page 59799]]


    (12) Unit 7: Jackson County, Mississippi.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 7: Jackson County, 
Mississippi]
    (ii) Note: Map of Unit 7: Jackson County, Mississippi follows:
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE11.004
    

[[Page 59800]]


    (13) Unit 8: Forrest County, Mississippi.
    (i) [Reserved for textual description of Unit 8: Forrest County, 
Mississippi]
    (ii) Note: Map depicting Unit 8 is provided at paragraph (14)(ii) 
of this entry.
    (14) Unit 9: Forrest County, Mississippi.
    (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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE11.005


[[Page 59801]]


    (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.
    (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.
    (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:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP27SE11.006


[[Page 59802]]


* * * * *

    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]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C