65FR33283 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To List the Mississippi Gopher Frog Distinct Population Segment of Dusky Gopher Frog as Endangered, Part 1/2
robop...@us.govnews.org
Posting-number: Volume 65, Issue 100, Page 33283, Part 1
Message-ID: <65FR...@us.govnews.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
[Federal Register: May 23, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 100)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33283-33291]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23my00-15]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AF90
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule To
List the Mississippi Gopher Frog Distinct Population Segment of Dusky
Gopher Frog as Endangered
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, propose to list the
Mississippi gopher frog distinct population segment of the dusky gopher
frog (Rana capito sevosa) as an endangered species under the authority
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). Historically,
the Mississippi gopher frog occurred in at least nine counties or
parishes across Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, ranging from east
of the Mississippi River in Louisiana to the Mobile River delta in
Alabama. Today, it is known from only one site in Harrison County,
Mississippi. This last surviving population is threatened by habitat
destruction and degradation from a proposed housing development on
property within 200 meters (m) (656 feet (ft)) of its only remaining
breeding pond; the construction and expansion of two highways in the
vicinity of the pond; and a proposed reservoir. These actions pose
threats to the terrestrial habitat of adult frogs and their ability to
offset mortality rates with reproduction and recruitment. This proposed
rule, if made final, would extend the Act's protection to the
Mississippi gopher frog distinct population segment.
DATES: Send your comments to reach us on or before July 24, 2000. We
will not consider comments received after the above date in making our
decision on the proposed rule. We must receive requests for public
hearings by July 7, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Send comments and materials concerning this proposal to the
Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Field
Office, 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Jackson, Mississippi 39213. Comments
and materials received will be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Linda LaClaire at the above
address, telephone 601/965-4900, or facsimile 601/965-4340.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The gopher frog (Rana capito) is a member of the large cosmopolitan
family, Ranidae (``true frogs''). The genus Rana is the only North
American representative of this family. We define the Mississippi
gopher frog distinct population segment as those populations of gopher
frogs in the lower coastal plain ranging from the Mississippi River in
Louisiana to the Mobile River delta of Alabama. Goin and Netting (1940)
described frogs from this geographic range as a distinct species of
gopher frog, Rana sevosa. The taxonomic history of gopher frogs is
complex (summary in Altig and Lohoefener 1983). Subsequent to the
original description by Goin and Netting, frogs of this population
segment were considered subspecies of Rana capito (gopher frog) (R. c.
sevosa) (Wright and Wright 1942) and later subspecies of R. areolata
(crayfish frog) (R. a. sevosa) (Viosca 1949). In 1991, Collins
challenged the taxonomic arrangement that lumped crayfish frogs and
gopher frogs together as one species and recommended their separation
based on biogeographical grounds. This arrangement was followed by
Conant and Collins (1991), who again recognized the name R. c. sevosa.
Wright and Wright (1942) first used the common name of ``dusky gopher
frog'' for this subspecies, and it has been used in subsequent
publications. The range of the subspecies, as presently described, also
extends to the Gulf Coast of western Florida and adjacent Alabama
(Conant and Collins 1991).
Young (1997) conducted the first comprehensive biochemical analysis
of the relationships between gopher frogs and crayfish frogs and among
subspecies of gopher frogs. She used allozyme electrophoresis (an assay
(examination) of gene products) to examine allelic (genetic)
differences between and among populations. Allozyme data have been used
extensively to investigate the evolution of genetic relationships among
related species. Young found strong support for the species
designations R. areolata (crayfish frogs) and R. capito (gopher frogs).
Gopher and crayfish frogs varied from each other by fixed differences
at four loci (specific locations on a gene). In addition, she found
that populations of gopher frogs from Harrison County, Mississippi,
were genetically distinct from other populations of gopher frogs east
of the Mobile River drainage in Alabama. Young analyzed tissue from
gopher frogs across the range of the species including populations in
Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and North Carolina. Although
Mississippi gopher frogs showed a fixed difference at only a single
locus (site for a specific gene on a chromosome) from all other gopher
frogs, this difference is considered by many taxonomists to be
significant enough to warrant elevation of the frog to its own species
(B. Crother, Southern Louisiana University, pers. comm. 1999). No other
specific taxonomic divisions could be determined among the remaining
populations of gopher frogs sampled. Since Harrison County is within
the range of the original specimens used to describe R. sevosa, Young
recommended the resurrection of R. sevosa as a distinct species. A
manuscript summarizing her findings has been submitted for publication
(Young and Crother, unpublished manuscript). If her recommendations are
accepted by the herpetological scientific community, we will reflect
this taxonomic change in subsequent publications in the Federal
Register. Researchers have recommended ``Mississippi gopher frog'' as
the common name for this population segment to distinguish it from the
other populations of gopher frogs further east (R. Seigel, pers. comm.
1998).
The Mississippi gopher frog has a stubby appearance due to its
short, plump body, comparatively large head, and relatively short legs
(Conant and Collins 1991). The coloration of its back is dark and
varies in individual frogs. It ranges from an almost uniform black to a
pattern of reddish brown or dark brown spots on a ground color of gray
or brown (Goin and Netting 1940). Warts densely cover the back. The
belly is thickly covered with dark spots and dusky markings from chin
to mid-body (Goin and Netting 1940, Conant and Collins 1991). Males are
distinguished from females by their smaller size, enlarged thumbs, and
paired vocal sacs on either side of the throat (Godley 1992). Richter
and Seigel (1998b) reported a mean snout-vent length of 67.7
millimeters (mm) (2.7 inches (in)) for males and 79.3 mm (3.2 in) for
females in the extant population. Mississippi gopher frog tadpoles are
presently indistinguishable from those of leopard frogs and other
gopher frogs
[[Page 33284]]
(R. Altig, Mississippi State University, pers. comm. 1999).
Mississippi gopher frog habitat includes both upland sandy habitats
historically forested with longleaf pine and isolated temporary wetland
breeding sites embedded within the forested landscape. Frequent fires
are necessary to maintain the open canopy and ground cover vegetation
of their aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
Adult and subadult Mississippi gopher frogs spend the majority of
their lives underground. They use active and abandoned gopher tortoise
(Gopherus polyphemus) burrows, abandoned mammal burrows, and holes in
and under old stumps as refugia (Allen 1932; LaClaire, pers. obs. 1996;
Richter and Seigel 1998a). Gopher tortoise burrows likely represent
preferred underground habitats. In Florida, Godley (1992) reported that
the closely related Florida gopher frog was known only from sites that
supported gopher tortoises. The remaining Mississippi gopher frog
population occurs in an area presently lacking gopher tortoises, most
likely as a result of habitat degradation. An abandoned tortoise burrow
occurs approximately 0.8 kilometers (km) (0.5 miles (mi)) from the
breeding pond, and an active burrow was found within 1.6 km (1 mi) of
the site in 1992 (T. Mann, Mississippi Department of Wildlife,
Fisheries and Parks, pers. comm. 1999).
Gopher frog breeding sites are isolated ponds (not connected to any
other water body) that dry completely on a cyclic basis. Substantial
winter rains are needed to ensure that ponds are filled sufficiently to
allow hatching, development, and metamorphosis of larvae. The timing
and frequency of rainfall are critical to the successful reproduction
and recruitment of Mississippi gopher frogs.
Today, only a single breeding pond is known for the Mississippi
gopher frog. It is located in Harrison County, Mississippi. Adult frogs
move to this wetland breeding site during heavy rain events, usually
from January to late March (Richter and Seigel 1998b). The breeding
pond is approximately 1.5 hectares (3.8 acres) when filled. It attains
a maximum depth of 1.1 m (3.6 ft). The pond is hard-bottomed, has an
open canopy, and contains emergent and submergent vegetation. Female
Mississippi gopher frogs attach their eggs to the rigid vertical stems
of emergent vegetation (Young 1997, Richter and Seigel 1998a, 1998b).
The pond typically dries in early to mid-summer, but on occasion has
remained wet until early fall (G. Johnson, U.S. Forest Service, pers.
comm. 1993; Young 1997; Richter and Seigel 1998b). As many as 20
amphibian species (18 frogs and 2 salamanders) are known to breed at
the site (G. Johnson, pers. comm. 1993). Bailey (1990) and Palis (1998)
found similar habitat attributes in breeding ponds of the closely
related gopher frogs in Alabama and Florida.
Adult Mississippi gopher frogs leave the pond site after breeding
during major rainfall events. Adults of both sexes use specific
migratory corridors when exiting the breeding pond (Richter and Seigel
1998b). Movements away from the pond are slightly east of due north.
Young (1997) and Richter and Seigel (1998a) tracked a total of 13 frogs
using radio transmitters. The farthest movement recorded was 268 m (879
ft) by a frog tracked for 88 days from its exit of the breeding site.
In Florida, gopher frogs have been found 2 km (1.2 mi) from their
breeding sites (Carr 1940, Franz et al. 1988). It is unclear if the
distances recorded for the Mississippi gopher frogs were typical; the
tracking periods represented only a fraction of their yearly life
cycle. Movements corresponded with major rain events. However, dry
conditions prevailed during most of the two study periods. In fact, the
frogs in Richter and Seigel's study moved during only one 24-hour
period, which was associated with a weather event. Another compounding
factor was the clearcut timber harvest in 1994 of a site adjacent to
the breeding pond. Migratory corridors and available habitat were
eliminated by the forestry operation. In 1996, two frogs were tracked
to the property line delineating the clearcut, and they did not move
from their burrows during the remainder of the study (Richter and
Seigel 1997).
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). Since they 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.
It is likely that, given appropriate habitat, Mississippi gopher
frogs are long-lived. The longevity record for a captive close
relative, the Carolina gopher frog (R. capito capito), is 9 years, 1
month (Snider and Bowler 1992). However, overall low rates of recapture
at the extant breeding pond suggest low adult survival in the
Mississippi gopher frog population (Richter and Seigel 1998b).
Historical records for the Mississippi gopher frog exist for two or
possibly three parishes in Louisiana, six counties in Mississippi, and
one county in Alabama. Researchers conducting numerous surveys have
been unable to document the continuing existence of the Mississippi
gopher frog in Louisiana (Seigel and Doody 1992, Thomas 1996) or in
Alabama (Bailey 1992, 1994). The last observation of a gopher frog in
Louisiana was in 1967 (Gary Lester, Louisiana Natural Heritage Program,
pers. comm. 1991). In Alabama, it was last seen in 1922 (Bailey 1994).
Historical records for the Mississippi gopher frog are limited. We
have compiled 35 historical records--1 in Alabama, 14 in Louisiana, and
20 in Mississippi. Historical records are defined as those localities
where gopher frogs were found prior to 1990. No new localities for the
frog have been found since 1988. Localities are sites identified from
specimens captured or heard calling during sampling of potential
breeding sites or by surveying highway crossings when individuals were
on their way to or from breeding sites. Of the 35 historical records,
24 provided data that could be used to approximate the location of the
original site.
Habitat degradation is the primary factor in the loss of gopher
frog populations in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Bailey (1994)
visited the historical Alabama locality in 1993. The habitat had been
developed as a residential area, and was no longer suitable for the
gopher frog. Seigel and Doody (1992) and Thomas (1996) surveyed
historical sites in Louisiana and searched for other potential sites
that might be occupied by gopher frogs. They also found that longleaf
pine forests had been severely degraded. The historical breeding and
upland habitats had changed as a result of urbanization and/or
conversion of forest to pine plantation. For example, they found three
historical breeding sites that had been extensively altered. One had
been made a permanent pond in a residential backyard. Two other ponds
had been extensively altered by bedding, clearing, and nutrient loading
during conversion of the surrounding habitat to pine plantation. Both
Seigel and Doody (1992) and Thomas (1996) were unsuccessful at finding
any Mississippi gopher frogs in Louisiana.
Crawford (1988) surveyed 42 ponds in 6 Mississippi counties in 1987
and 1988. He attempted to relocate all of the State's historical
localities for the gopher frog. He found that habitat in the vicinity
of historical localities had been altered by conversion of natural
forest to agriculture and pine plantations.
[[Page 33285]]
Urbanization was a factor in the loss of at least three breeding ponds.
The character of relocated historical breeding ponds had been changed
from open-canopy, temporary ponds with clear water and hard bottoms to
muddy, more permanent ponds with a closed canopy (G. Johnson, pers.
comm. 1999). No appropriate habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog
could be found near any of the localities (G. Johnson, pers. comm.
1999). Crawford (1988) also used aerial maps to identify potential
breeding sites. In many cases, ponds identified on these maps no longer
existed due to land use changes. However, he was able to verify the
presence of the species at four new sites in Harrison County,
Mississippi. At three of these four sites, only one individual was
observed. Kuss (1988) surveyed 60 ponds in southern Mississippi for the
flatwoods salamander (Ambystoma cingulatum). He did not encounter any
gopher frogs during the surveys. Subsequent to these studies, surveys
have documented the continued existence of only one population in
Mississippi. This population breeds at a pond located in the DeSoto
National Forest in Harrison County. Surveyors working in Mississippi
during the 1990s have been unable to find the species at any other
sites (R. Jones, Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and
Parks, pers. comm. 1998; G. Johnson, pers. comm. 1999). Although Allen
(1932) found gopher frogs to be common in the coastal counties of
Mississippi earlier in the century, today R. Seigel (pers. comm. 1998)
estimates the extant Mississippi gopher frog population to be only 100
adult frogs at a single site.
The extensive habitat alteration found during surveys of historical
gopher frog localities in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi resulted
from the loss of virtually all of the natural longleaf pine forest in
these States. Presettlement longleaf pine forests were the dominant
forest type of the southeastern coastal plain. Today, less than 2
percent of these forests remain (Ware et al. 1993). Second growth
longleaf pine forests in the vicinity of historical Mississippi gopher
frog breeding sites were clearcut extensively in the mid-1950s and then
again in the 1980s and 1990s. Longleaf pine forest habitat was replaced
with dense pine plantations, agriculture, and urban areas. Habitat
degradation has occurred as a result of alterations in the soil horizon
(layering of different soil types), forest litter, herbaceous
community, and occurrence of downed trees and stumps that Mississippi
gopher frogs use as refugia. Fire suppression has further degraded the
habitat. The hydrology of many isolated temporary wetlands, required as
breeding sites for the Mississippi gopher frog, has been altered. In
addition, these same factors have resulted in the decline of the gopher
tortoise, whose burrows are most likely the preferred habitat for adult
gopher frogs. As a result of these habitat changes, both the uplands
and the pond basins previously occupied by the Mississippi gopher frog
have become unsuitable.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
Recent genetic analysis suggested reevaluation of the taxonomy of
gopher frogs (Rana capito) is necessary (Young 1997). The analysis of
the relationships between gopher frogs and crayfish frogs, and among
subspecies of gopher frogs, failed to support the current taxonomy for
gopher frogs at the subspecific level. However, the research did
support taxonomic distinction of the Mississippi gopher frog from all
other gopher frogs east of the Mobile River delta, including other
dusky gopher frogs. Young and Crother (unpublished manuscript)
concluded that the Mississippi gopher frog population segment should be
resurrected to species status.
The biological evidence supports recognition of the Mississippi
gopher frog as a distinct vertebrate population segment for purposes of
listing, as defined in our February 7, 1996, Policy Regarding the
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments (61 FR 4722).
The definition of ``species'' in section 3(16) of the Act includes
``any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or
wildlife which interbreeds when mature.'' For a population to be listed
under the Act as a distinct vertebrate population segment, three
elements are considered--(1) the discreteness of the population segment
in relation to the remainder of the species to which it belongs; (2)
the significance of the population segment to the species to which it
belongs; and (3) the population segment's conservation status in
relation to the Act's standards for listing (i.e., is the population
segment endangered or threatened?).
Habitat of the lower Gulf Coastal Plain from the Mississippi River
to the Mobile River delta contains the westernmost subpopulation of
dusky gopher frogs. This population segment is discrete because it is
geographically segregated from other gopher frogs by a large gap
(approximately 200 km (125 mi)) of unoccupied habitat and the Mobile
River delta. Consequently, this subpopulation does not mix with other
dusky gopher frogs.
Young (1997) presented evidence that the Mississippi gopher frog
distinct population segment is biologically and ecologically
significant due to genetic characteristics different from the species
as a whole (see discussion in Background section). The habitat occupied
by the Mississippi gopher frog is disjunct from habitat occupied by
other populations of the dusky gopher frog. No other populations of
gopher frogs remain in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama west of the
Mobile River drainage. As a result, loss of the Mississippi gopher frog
population segment would result in a substantial modification of the
species' range.
Previous Federal Action
In our December 30, 1982, Notice of Review, we designated the dusky
gopher frog (designation Rana areolata sevosa) as a category 2
candidate and solicited status information (47 FR 58454). Category 2
candidates were those taxa for which we had information indicating that
proposing to list as endangered or threatened was possibly appropriate,
but for which sufficient data on biological vulnerability and threats
were not currently available to support a proposed rule. Category 1
taxa were those taxa for which we had sufficient information on
biological vulnerability and threats on file to support issuance of
proposed listing rules. In our September 18, 1985 (50 FR 37958), and
January 6, 1989 (54 FR 554), Notices of Review, we retained the dusky
gopher frog in category 2. We identified the dusky gopher frog as a
category 1 candidate species in our November 21, 1991 (56 FR 58804),
and November 15, 1994 (59 FR 58982), Notices of Review. Beginning with
our February 28, 1996, Notice of Review (61 FR 235), we discontinued
the designation of multiple categories of candidates, and we now
consider only taxa that meet the definition of former category 1 taxa
as candidates for listing. We also removed Rana areolata sevosa from
candidate status based on the need for additional information to
support a listing proposal. We have recently completed an analysis of
newly available information from current studies and determined that
listing the Mississippi gopher frog distinct population segment of the
dusky gopher frog is warranted. We elevated the Mississippi gopher frog
to candidate status in our October 25, 1999, Notice of Review (64 FR
57534).
The processing of this proposed rule conforms with our Listing
Priority Guidance published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1999
(64 FR 57114). The guidance clarifies the order
[[Page 33286]]
in which we will process rulemakings. Highest priority is processing
emergency listing rules for any species determined to face a
significant and imminent risk to its well-being (Priority 1). Second
priority (Priority 2) is processing final determinations on proposed
additions to the lists of endangered and threatened wildlife and
plants. Third priority is processing new proposals to add species to
the lists. The processing of administrative petition findings
(petitions filed under section 4 of the Act) is the fourth priority.
The processing of critical habitat determinations (prudency and
determinability decisions) and proposed or final designations of
critical habitat will no longer be subject to prioritization under the
Listing Priority Guidance. This proposed rule is a Priority 3 action
and is being completed in accordance with the current Listing Priority
Guidance.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and regulations (50 CFR part 424) issued to
implement the listing provisions of the Act set forth the procedures
for adding species to the Federal lists. We may determine a species to
be an endangered or threatened species due to one or more of the five
factors described in section 4(a)(1). These factors and their
application to the Mississippi gopher frog distinct population segment
(Rana capito sevosa) are as follows:
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
The range of the Mississippi gopher frog has been reduced as a
result of habitat destruction and modification (see ``Background''
section). Historically, the Mississippi gopher frog occurred in at
least nine counties or parishes in the States of Alabama, Mississippi,
and Louisiana. Today, it is known from only one site in Harrison
County, Mississippi.
The Mississippi Gulf Coast has experienced a recent increase in
residential development. The land 200 m (656 ft) immediately north of
the only known Mississippi gopher frog breeding site is slated for
development, including a 20,000-unit retirement community, a sewage
treatment plant, and several golf courses (L. Lewis, Brown and
Mitchell, Inc., pers. comm. 1999). The sewage treatment plant and one
golf course are currently planned immediately north of the gopher frog
pond. Richter and Seigel (1998b) reported that the majority of gopher
frogs leaving the breeding pond moved in the general direction of the
development site. Two frogs, tracked using transmitters, were observed
at the fence line delineating the DeSoto National Forest property
boundary from the lands currently slated for development (Richter and
Seigel 1998a). It seems likely that Mississippi gopher frogs occupy, or
in the very recent past have occupied, this site. Residential
development of the site would likely destroy its suitability for the
frog.
Due to the close proximity of this development to the Mississippi
gopher frog pond, a number of indirect impacts are possible. The most
severe is the potential alteration of hydrology (physical factors that
influence the movement of water into and out of a wetland) in the local
region. The breeding pond of the Mississippi gopher frog must maintain
its isolation and cycle of filling and drying, or it will no longer be
suitable habitat. Wetland dredging and filling will be required in
order to site houses and build the golf course and sewage treatment
plant. The consequences of these proposed hydrological alterations
cannot be estimated without further study. However, the only known
breeding pond for the Mississippi gopher frog would undoubtedly be
affected in some way (W. Oakley, U.S. Geological Survey, pers. comm.
1999).
A number of scenarios are possible due to the proximity of a
proposed regional sewage treatment plant within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the
Mississippi gopher frog pond. If sewage lagoons are used, it is
possible they could overflow and flood gopher frog habitat. Such
conditions of high water periodically result from the tropical storms
that occur along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Another potential effect
is the lowering or raising of the groundwater table. Changes in the
water table will alter the hydroperiod of the Mississippi gopher frog
breeding pond and reduce its habitat suitability.
A dam has been proposed for the Biloxi River within 1.6 km (1 mi)
of the Mississippi gopher frog pond. The reservoir plan involves a dam
on the Biloxi River that would flood approximately 567 hectares (1,400
acres), primarily within the boundaries of the DeSoto National Forest
(Sun Herald, Gulfport, Mississippi, May 4, 1999). The impoundment
created by this dam would likely alter the temporary nature of the
breeding site and flood occupied upland habitat used by adult frogs
and/or potentially unoccupied upland habitat.
The highway expansion, both ongoing and planned, in the vicinity of
the existing Mississippi gopher frog pond will fragment the available
longleaf pine habitat (see Factor E). Urbanization will expand along
these highway corridors and further reduce available habitat for the
frog. Highway construction may also alter the existing hydrology of the
area through creation of drainage ditches, filling of wetlands, and
sedimentation.
The remaining breeding pond for the Mississippi gopher frog is
located in the DeSoto National Forest. Silviculture, including timber
sales with associated clearcutting, is currently the primary activity
in this area. Inappropriate timber management could alter the
suitability of the Mississippi gopher frog's remaining habitat (see
``Background'' section). In 1994, habitat on private land 200 m (656
ft) north of the breeding pond, now slated for residential development,
was clearcut. The behavior of two Mississippi gopher frogs tracked from
their breeding site may be indicative of the negative effects of
clearcutting. The two frogs were followed to a burrow at the boundary
of the clearcut (Richter and Seigel 1998a). They never left this
location during the life of the transmitters. The burrow and stump
holes used by migrating frogs on the clearcut site were likely altered.
In addition, the site had no overstory and would represent a desert to
moisture-requiring frogs. Although the effects of the clearcut on the
population are unknown, it appears likely that, at least temporarily,
the habitat was unsuitable for the frogs.
Historical gopher frog breeding sites have been degraded by roads
that pass through or are adjacent to ponds. Erosion of unpaved roads
adjacent to breeding sites may result in an influx of sediment from
surrounding uplands during rainstorms. The hydroperiod (period during
which a wetland holds water) at the Mississippi gopher frog breeding
site has been negatively affected by a poorly maintained logging road
that runs within 20 m (66 ft) of the pond (R. Seigel, pers. comm.
1998).
The open canopy and flat, unforested bottom of the Mississippi
gopher frog breeding pond represent an alluring site for dumping
unwanted trash and riding off-road vehicles (ORV). Many temporary ponds
throughout the southeast have been degraded as a result of garbage
dumping (LaClaire, pers. obs. 1994). ORVs can cause direct mortality of
gopher frog tadpoles and adults (J. Jensen, Georgia Department of
Natural Resources, pers. comm. 1996) as well as alter the quality of a
breeding site. ORVs alter the contours of the pond floor, eliminate
herbaceous vegetation, and can alter the hydrology of the site
(LaClaire, pers. obs. 1995). Loss of herbaceous vegetation caused by
ORVs could also discourage gopher frog
[[Page 33287]]
reproduction, since egg masses are attached to stems of herbaceous
vegetation (Young 1997; Richter and Seigel 1998a, 1998b). ORV tracks
have been documented within the Mississippi gopher frog breeding site
(G. Johnson, pers. comm. 1994). In 1994, an area of the DeSoto National
Forest within 2.4 km (1.5 mi) of the existing breeding pond was
temporarily closed due to accumulation of trash, soil erosion and water
quality degradation caused by ORVs, damage to endangered and sensitive
plants and animals, and other vandalism (K. Godwin, U.S. Forest
Service, pers. comm. 1994). ORV use will likely increase in the
vicinity of the pond if the proposed housing development occurs
adjacent to the site.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
Direct take of Mississippi gopher frogs for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes is not currently a
threat. However, listing the Mississippi gopher frog may make it more
attractive to collectors through recognition of its rarity. In
addition, the life history and ecology of Mississippi gopher frogs make
them vulnerable to overcollecting, as well as vandalism. Only a single
breeding pond remains for this frog. At predictable times of the year,
all breeding adults congregate at this one site to breed.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease is not known to be a factor in the decline of the
Mississippi gopher frog. However, predation may be a threat. Richter
and Seigel (1998a) reported that approximately 44 percent of all eggs
at the existing breeding site were lost in 1997 prior to hatching. An
undetermined amount of the egg mortality was due to predation by
caddisfly larvae (Order Trichoptera, Family Phryganeidae) on the egg
masses. Caddisfly larvae were not observed on egg masses in the
previous year of the study. The effect on the Mississippi gopher frog
population is unknown. However, if mortality of this magnitude is a
result of predation, it is a cause for concern in such an extremely
small and isolated population.
Predation from fish probably contributed to the loss of historic
populations. Temporary ponds altered to form more permanent bodies of
water and stocked with fish are no longer suitable breeding sites. Fish
may have also entered breeding sites through the connection of drainage
ditches and firebreaks to pond basins. The Mississippi gopher frog is
adapted to temporary wetlands, and its larvae cannot survive the heavy
predation of bass and sunfish commonly used to stock ponds. One
historical location in Louisiana was destroyed in part because it has
become a permanent pond with fish (Thomas 1996). In Mississippi, a
calling male was discovered in 1987 at a site that has since been
converted to a fish pond (T. Mann, pers. comm. 1998). No gopher frogs
have been reported subsequently at this site, which is no longer
considered suitable breeding habitat.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Louisiana has no protective legislation for the Mississippi gopher
frog. Alabama protects all gopher frogs as nongame species (J. Woehr,
Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, pers. comm.
1994). The Mississippi gopher frog is listed as endangered in
Mississippi (Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks
1992), and both Mississippi and Alabama provide protection against
collecting of the species. However, this legislation does nothing to
alleviate the habitat loss that has caused the decline of the species.
The only known breeding site for the Mississippi gopher frog is on U.S.
Forest Service land. As a result, there has been a concerted effort to
encourage the U.S. Forest Service to manage the site for the frog.
Although the U.S. Forest Service has an obligation to ensure their land
management activities protect fish and wildlife (National Forest
Management Act), forest management is often limited by existing
funding. Other avenues of funding become available to the U.S. Forest
Service once a species is federally listed.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Fire is needed to maintain the natural longleaf pine community.
Ecologists consider fire suppression a primary reason for the
degradation of the remaining longleaf pine acreage in the southeast
(Noss 1988, Ware et al. 1993). Fire suppression has reduced the quality
of the terrestrial and aquatic habitat for the Mississippi gopher frog.
Canopy closure from fire suppression alters the forest floor vegetation
and threatens the open, herbaceous character typical of gopher frog
breeding ponds (Kirkman 1995, LaClaire 1995). In addition, fire causes
the release of nutrients bound in plant material. This release of
nutrients results in a flush of primary productivity that is important
to the herbivorous gopher frog tadpoles. Fire suppression has probably
negatively impacted all of the historical Mississippi gopher frog
sites. At this time, fire is the only known management tool that will
maintain the existing breeding pond as suitable habitat.
Between 1991 and 1998, the U.S. Forest Service conducted periodic
growing-season burns of the forest compartment surrounding the
Mississippi gopher frog breeding pond. These burns improved habitat
conditions, but their frequency and extent have been insufficient. For
example, the interior of the breeding site has been burned only once
since 1991. This frequency of burning is too low to prevent woody
encroachment and, therefore, too low to enhance herbaceous growth.
Residential development and road construction in the vicinity of the
breeding pond will create increased concerns about, and likely reduce
the use of, fire as a management tool.
Habitat fragmentation of the longleaf pine ecosystem, resulting
from habitat conversion, threatens the survival of the single remaining
Mississippi gopher frog population. Studies have shown that the loss of
small, fragmented populations is common, and recolonization is critical
for their regional survival (Fahrig and Merriam 1994, Burkey 1995). As
patches of available habitat become separated beyond the dispersal
range of a species, populations are more sensitive to genetic,
demographic, and environmental variability and may be unable to recover
(Gilpin 1987, Sjogren 1991, Blaustein et al. 1994). This scenario
describes threats to the Mississippi gopher frog. Five historical
Mississippi gopher frog localities exist within a 19.2-km (12-mi)
radius of the remaining site. Highways have fragmented this area and
contributed to habitat degradation. The most recent records of frogs at
these locales was in the late 1980s. The planned construction of
highways within 5 km (3.1 mi) both to the north and east of the
existing Mississippi gopher frog pond will further isolate the
remaining population from the two potentially restorable historical
breeding sites in the DeSoto National Forest. The Biloxi River and
additional residential development bound the habitat to the west and
south.
Low reproductive potential may also present a threat to the
Mississippi gopher frog's continued existence. Studies at the
Mississippi breeding site suggest that female Mississippi gopher frogs
may not breed until 2 to 3 years of age and may breed only in alternate
years and/or have only a single lifetime
[[Page 33288]]
breeding event (Richter and Seigel 1998b). In addition, survival of
juvenile frogs is thought to be extremely low (Richter and Seigel
1998b).
Annual variability in rainfall influences how frequently and how
long a pond is appropriate breeding habitat. Reliance on specific
weather conditions results in unpredictable breeding events and reduces
the likelihood that recruitment will occur every year. No larvae
survived to metamorphosis in 3 out of 6 years of the reproductive study
of the extant Mississippi gopher frog population (summarized in Richter
and Seigel 1998b). In addition, study results indicate that only 1 year
out of 6 resulted in the explosive numbers (2,488) of juveniles typical
of temporary pond breeding amphibians.
The Mississippi gopher frog population is highly susceptible to
genetic isolation, inbreeding, and random demographic events as a
result of having only one known breeding site. Long-lasting droughts or
frequent floods may negatively affect the population. Although these
are natural processes, other threats, such as habitat fragmentation,
habitat degradation, and low reproductive potential, may cause the
population to decline to the point that it cannot recover.
Pesticides and herbicides pose a threat to amphibians such as the
Mississippi gopher frog, because their permeable eggs and skin readily
absorb substances from the surrounding aquatic or terrestrial
environment (Duellman and Trueb 1986). Aquatic frog larvae are likely
more vulnerable than adults to chemical changes in their environment.
Negative effects of commonly used pesticides and herbicides on
amphibian larvae include delayed metamorphosis, paralysis, reduced
growth rates, and mortality (Bishop 1992, Berrill and Bertram 1997,
Bridges 1999). Adult gopher frogs are predaceous and could be affected
by pesticides accumulated in their invertebrate prey. If a golf course
is built in the drainage area of the Mississippi gopher frog breeding
pond, as proposed, the herbicides and pesticides used to maintain it
would pose a potential threat to the population. In addition, runoff
from chemically maintained yards and roads in the proposed residential
development may contribute toxins that could threaten the frog.
Herbicides may also alter the density and species composition of
vegetation surrounding a breeding site and reduce the number of
potential sites for egg deposition, larval development, or shelter for
migrating frogs.
We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the past, present, and future threats
faced by the Mississippi gopher frog distinct population segment in
determining to propose this rule. Based on this evaluation, the
preferred action is to list the Mississippi gopher frog distinct
population segment as endangered. The Act defines an endangered species
as one that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. A threatened species is one that is likely to
become an endangered species in the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range. As discussed under Factor A, in
spite of extensive surveys throughout the known range of the
Mississippi gopher frog, only one population is known to exist.
Further, residential development, new and expanding highways, increased
fire suppression, and a proposed reservoir pose threats to the
remaining habitat of adult gopher frogs. For these reasons, we find
that the Mississippi gopher frog distinct population segment is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range and, therefore, endangered status is appropriate.
Critical Habitat
Critical habitat is defined in section 3 of the Act as: (I) The
specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species, at
the time it is listed in accordance with the Act, on which are found
those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation
of the species and (II) that may require special management
considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the
geographical area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon
a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of
the species. ``Conservation'' means the use of all methods and
procedures needed to bring the species to the point at which listing
under the Act is no longer necessary.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the time the species
is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR
424.12(a)(1)) state that designation of critical habitat is not prudent
when one or both of the following situations exist--(I) 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 (ii) such designation of critical habitat would not be
beneficial to the species. We find that designation of critical habitat
is prudent for the Mississippi gopher frog.
Critical habitat designation, by definition, directly affects only
Federal agency actions through consultation under section 7(a)(2) of
the Act. Section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat.
Section 4(a)(3) of the Act, as amended, and implementing
regulations (50 CFR 424.12) require that, to the maximum extent prudent
and determinable, we designate critical habitat at the time the species
is determined to be endangered or threatened. Our regulations (50 CFR
424.12(a)(1)) state that 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 human activity, and identification of
critical habitat can be expected to increase the degree of threat to
the species, or (2) such designation of critical habitat would not be
beneficial to the species.
The Final Listing Priority Guidance for FY 2000 (64 FR 57114)
states, ``The processing of critical habitat determinations (prudency
and determinability decisions) and proposed or final designations of
critical habitat will no longer be subject to prioritization under the
Listing Priority Guidance. Critical habitat determinations, which were
previously included in final listing rules published in the Federal
Register, may now be processed separately, in which case stand-alone
critical habitat determinations will be published as notices in the
Federal Register. We will undertake critical habitat determinations and
designations during FY 2000 as allowed by our funding allocation for
that year.'' As explained in detail in the Listing Priority Guidance,
our listing budget is currently insufficient to allow us to immediately
complete all of the listing actions required by the Act.
We propose that critical habitat is prudent for the Mississippi
gopher frog. In the last few years, a series of court decisions have
overturned Service determinations regarding a variety of species that
designation of critical habitat would not be prudent (e.g., Natural
Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior 113 F. 3d
1121 (9th Cir. 1997); Conservation Council for Hawaii v. Babbitt, 2 F.
Supp. 2d 1280 (D. Hawaii 1998)). Based on the standards applied in
those judicial opinions, we believe that designation of
[[Page 33289]]
critical habitat would be prudent for the Mississippi gopher frog.
Due to the fact that the Mississippi gopher frog is only known from
one site, it is vulnerable to unrestricted collection, vandalism, or
other disturbance. We are concerned that these threats might be
exacerbated by the publication of critical habitat maps and further
dissemination of locational information. However, at this time we do
not have specific evidence for the Mississippi gopher frog of taking,
vandalism, collection, or trade of this species or any similarly
situated species. Consequently, consistent with applicable regulations
(50 CFR 424.12(a)(1)(I)) and recent case law, we do not expect that the
identification of critical habitat will further increase the degree of
threat of taking or other human activity above that of the listing of
the species.
In the absence of a finding that critical habitat would increase
threats to a species, if there are any benefits to critical habitat
designation, then a prudent finding is warranted. In the case of this
species, there may be some benefits to designation of critical habitat.
The primary regulatory effect of critical habitat is the section 7
requirement that Federal agencies refrain from taking any action that
destroys or adversely modifies critical habitat. While a critical
habitat designation for habitat currently occupied by this species
would not be likely to change the section 7 consultation outcome
because an action that destroys or adversely modifies such critical
habitat would also be likely to result in jeopardy to the species,
there may be instances where section 7 consultation would be triggered
only if critical habitat is designated. Examples could include
unoccupied habitat or occupied habitat that may become unoccupied in
the future. There may also be some educational or informational
benefits to designating critical habitat. Therefore, we propose that
critical habitat is prudent for the Mississippi gopher frog. However,
the deferral of the critical habitat designation for the Mississippi
gopher frog will allow us to concentrate our limited resources on
higher priority critical habitat and other listing actions, while
allowing us to put in place protections needed for the conservation of
the Mississippi gopher frog without further delay. We anticipate in FY
2000 and beyond giving higher priority to critical habitat designation,
including designations deferred pursuant to the Listing Priority
Guidance, such as the designation for this species, than we have in
recent fiscal years.
We plan to employ a priority system for deciding which outstanding
critical habitat designations should be addressed first. We will focus
our efforts on those designations that will provide the most
conservation benefit, taking into consideration the efficacy of
critical habitat designation in addressing the threats to the species,
and the magnitude and immediacy of those threats. We will make the
final critical habitat determination with the final listing
determination for the Mississippi gopher frog. If this final critical
habitat determination is that critical habitat is prudent, we will
develop a proposal to designate critical habitat for the Mississippi
gopher frog as soon as feasible, considering our workload priorities.
Available Conservation Measures
Conservation measures provided to species listed as endangered or
threatened under the Act include recognition, recovery actions,
requirements for Federal protection, and prohibitions against certain
activities. Recognition through listing results in public awareness and
conservation actions by Federal, State, and local agencies, private
organizations, and individuals. The Act provides for possible land
acquisition and cooperation with the States and requires that recovery
actions be carried out for all listed species. The protection required
of Federal agencies and the prohibitions against taking and harm are
discussed, in part, below.
Section 7(a) of the Act, as amended, requires Federal agencies to
evaluate their actions with respect to any species that is listed as
endangered or threatened and with respect to its critical habitat, if
any is designated. Regulations implementing this interagency
cooperation provision of the Act are codified at 50 CFR part 402.
Section 7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer informally with us
on any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
species proposed for listing or result in destruction or adverse
modification of proposed critical habitat. If a species is subsequently
listed, section 7(a)(2) requires Federal agencies to ensure that
activities they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of the species or destroy or
adversely modify its critical habitat. If a Federal action may affect a
listed species or its critical habitat, the responsible Federal agency
must enter into formal consultation with us.
The Mississippi gopher frog occurs in the DeSoto National Forest,
Federal land administered by the U.S. Forest Service. The U.S. Forest
Service will be required to evaluate whether their activities have the
potential to adversely impact the Mississippi gopher frog. Their
activities that could adversely modify suitable habitat include, but
are not limited to, forest management and road construction. Other
Federal agencies that may be involved in authorizing, funding, or
carrying out activities that may affect the Mississippi gopher frog
include the Army Corps of Engineers, due to their regulation of
discharges of dredged or fill material into isolated wetlands under
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), nationwide permit 26 and dam
construction in navigable waters under section 10 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act and 404 of the CWA; the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, due to their oversight of gas pipeline and powerline
rights-of-way; and the Federal Highway Administration, if Federal funds
are involved in road construction.
We have been working with the U.S. Forest Service since 1988 to
protect the last remaining population of the Mississippi gopher frog.
We have advised the U.S. Forest Service on protection and management
needs for this species. We have supported research on the ecology and
life history of this population by projects funded through our
cooperative agreement with the State of Mississippi under section 6 of
the Act. In addition, we have collaborated with the U.S. Forest Service
on the rehabilitation of a nearby pond as a future breeding site for
the frog.
The Act and its implementing regulations found at 50 CFR 17.21 set
forth a series of general prohibitions and exceptions that apply to all
endangered wildlife. These prohibitions, in part, make it illegal for
any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to take
(includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap,
capture, or collect; or to attempt any of these), import, export, ship
in interstate commerce in the course of commercial activity, or sell or
offer for sale in interstate or foreign commerce any endangered
wildlife species. It is also illegal to possess, sell, deliver, carry,
transport, or ship any such wildlife that has been taken illegally.
Certain exceptions apply to our agents and agents of State conservation
agencies.
It is our policy, published in the Federal Register on July 1, 1994
(59 FR 34272), to identify, to the maximum extent practicable at the
time a species is listed, those activities that are or are not likely
to constitute a violation of section 9 of the Act. The intent of this
policy is to increase public awareness of
[[Page 33290]]
the effects of the listing on proposed and ongoing activities within a
species' range.
We believe the following activities are unlikely to result in a
violation of section 9 for the Mississippi gopher frog:
(1) Possession of legally acquired Mississippi gopher frogs;
(2) Lawful hunting activities;
(3) Lawful burning of habitat where the Mississippi gopher frog is
known to occur, including winter burning;
(4) Federally approved projects that involve activities such as
discharge of fill material, draining, ditching, bedding, diversion or
alteration of surface or ground water flow into or out of a wetland
(i.e., due to roads, impoundments, discharge pipes, etc.), when the
activity is conducted in accordance with any reasonable and prudent
measures given by us in accordance with section 7 of the Act; and,
(5) Conversion of longleaf pine habitat where the Mississippi
gopher frog does not occur.
We believe the following activities could potentially result in
``take'' of the Mississippi gopher frog:
(1) Unauthorized killing, collecting, handling, or harassing of
individual Mississippi gopher frogs; this would include unauthorized
use of off-road vehicles in the wetland basins of known breeding sites
of the species.
(2) Possessing, selling, transporting, or shipping illegally taken
Mississippi gopher frogs;
(3) Unauthorized destruction or alteration of the hydrology of the
frog's wetland breeding sites. These actions would include off-site
activities that alter the regional hydrology by changing the natural
recharge to the below-ground aquifer, altering the groundwater table,
or altering flows in stream drainages, which would impact the
appropriate temporal fluctuations and/or water-holding capacity at
existing breeding sites. Unauthorized actions that could alter the
hydrology of breeding sites would include discharge of fill material,
draining, ditching, bedding, clear-cutting within the wetland,
diversion or alteration of surface or ground water flow into or out of
a wetland (i.e., due to roads, impoundments, discharge pipes, etc.),
and operation of any vehicles within the wetland; and,
(4) Discharge or dumping of toxic chemicals, silt, or other
pollutants (i.e., sewage, oil, pesticides, and gasoline) into isolated
wetlands or upland habitats supporting the species. This includes any
application of terrestrial or aquatic pesticide that results in the
mortality of adult frogs or tadpoles, regardless if the pesticide was
applied in accordance with the labeling instructions. This includes
drift from aerial applications and runoff from surface applications.
We will review other activities not identified above on a case-by-
case basis to determine whether they may be likely to result in a
violation of section 9 of the Act. We do not consider these lists to be
exhaustive and provide them as information to the public. You should
direct questions regarding whether specific activities may constitute a
violation of section 9 to the Field Supervisor of our Mississippi Field
Office (see ADDRESSES section).
We may issue permits to carry out otherwise prohibited activities
involving endangered wildlife species under certain circumstances.
Regulations governing permits are at 50 CFR 17.22. For endangered
species, you may obtain permits for scientific purposes, to enhance the
propagation or survival of the species, and/or for incidental take in
connection with otherwise lawful activities. You may request copies of
the regulations regarding listed wildlife from, and address questions
about prohibitions and permits to, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
1875 Century Blvd., Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345, or telephone
404/679-7313; facsimile 404/679-7081.
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this proposed rule. Our practice is to make comments,
including names and home addresses of respondents, available for public
review during regular business hours. Individual respondents may
request that we withhold their home address from the rulemaking record,
which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There also may be
circumstances in which we would withhold from the rulemaking record a
respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you wish us to withhold
your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at the
beginning of your comment. However, we will not consider anonymous
comments. We will make all submissions from organizations or
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety. We particularly seek comments
concerning:
(1) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threat (or lack thereof) to this distinct population segment;
(2) The location of any additional populations of this distinct
population segment;
(3) The reasons why any habitat should or should not be determined
to be critical habitat as provided by section 4 of the Act;
(4) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, and
size of this distinct population segment; and
(5) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their
possible impacts on this distinct population segment.
We will take into consideration your comments and any additional
information received on this distinct population segment when making a
final determination regarding this proposal. We will also submit the
available scientific data and information to appropriate, independent
specialists for review. We will summarize the opinions of these
reviewers in the final decision document. The final determination may
differ from this proposal based upon the information we receive.
You may request a public hearing on this proposal. Your request for
a hearing must be made in writing and filed within 45 days of the date
of publication of this proposal in the Federal Register. Address your
request to the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that we do not need to prepare an Environmental
Assessment, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, in connection with regulations
adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any new collections of information other
than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and assigned Office of Management and Budget
clearance 1018-0094. 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 control number. For additional information
concerning permit and associated requirements for endangered species,
see 50 CFR 17.22.
[[Page 33291]]
References Cited
You may request a list of all references cited in this document, as
well as others, from the Mississippi Field Office (see ADDRESSES
section).
Author. The primary author of this proposed rule is Linda V.
LaClaire, Mississippi Field Office (see ADDRESSES section) (601/965-
4900).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500, unless otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 17.11(h) add the following, in alphabetical order under
AMPHIBIANS, to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *