# Amicus Curiae Brief — Weyerhaeuser Co. v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv., 139 S. Ct. 45 (2018) (No. 17-71)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0771%3A42

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief
- **Published:** January 1, 2018

## Text

No. 17-71

Iu The
Supreme Court of the United States

~¢
v

WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY,
Petitioner,
Vv.

UNITED STATES FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE, et al.,

Respondents.

,’
¥

On Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

eo
A

BRIEF FOR GOPHER FROG EXPERTS AS AMICI
CURIAE SUPPORTING FEDERAL RESPONDENTS
AND INTERVENOR-RESPONDENTS

@
¥

Lisa W. JORDAN
Counsel of Record
TULANE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC
TULANE LAW SCHOOL
6329 Freret Street
New Orleans, LA 70118
(504) 314-2481
lwjordan@tulane.edu
Counsel for Amici Curiae Gopher Frog Experts

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ........................cccc0000: ii
INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE ....................... 1
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .......00000 000.000.000.000... 6
a itiainiiiattiicbincinnhitinsntntiriansestnnpicaisntinnieninie 7

I. The Dusky Gopher Frog is Critically En-
IT iidiiasennneondinignianniidemmiasiionaimantignemninn 7

Il. Unit 1 is Essential to the Conservation of
the Dusky Gopher Frog ...........................+. 12

A. The Dusky Gopher Frog’s Breeding
I tintninceniisstentanmiantinenaioes 13

B. Habitat Geographically Remote from
the Existing Gopher Frog Populations
is Essential to the Conservation of the
Se ichninsidhcnisininqudsinucuannenieneninianitennmss 16

C. The Unique Qualities of Unit 1 Make
It Essential for the Conservation of

the Dusky Gopher Frog....................... 20
D. Unit 1 is Essential Despite Its Lack of
Optimal Upland Habitat ..................... 23

SE cinidindinintnbsnnnrtetdcbinccissinenuentninenccoesee 27

‘i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

FEDERAL REGISTER

Designation of Critical Habitat for Dusky Go-
pher Frog, 77 Fed. Reg. 35,118 (June 12, 2012)...... 11

Final Rule to List the Mississippi Gopher Frog
Distinct Population Segment of Dusky Go-
pher Frog as Endangered, 66 Fed. Reg. 62,993
I ae I anssccnssccnteseseinuncscenmaniiscsnsenecsnmesent passim

OTHER SOURCES

Jeff Boundy & John L. Carr, Amphibians & Rep-
tiles of Louisiana 138 (La. State Univ. Press
ii eiliinenicdiciccncsaltenisnetiniesssnneinmmansstaahennattinninsitains 11, 13, 26

Cynthia Carey & Michael A. Alexander, Climate
Change and Amphibian Declines: Is There a
Link?, 9 Diversity and Distributions 111 (2003),
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
230033657_Climate_change and amphibian_
declines_Is_there_a_link ......................0cseeeeeeeeeeeeees 18

Charlene D’Avanzo, Long-Term Evaluation of
Wetland Creation Projects, in 2 Perspectives,
Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Sta-
tus of the Science 75 (John A. Kusler and
Mary E. Kentula eds., USEPA 1989), https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/20 15-08/
documents/wetland_creation_and_restoration_-
_the_status_of the science vol_2 1.pdf................ 21

ste

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page
John B. Jensen et al., The Relationship Between
Breeding by the Gopher Frog, Rana capito
(Amphibia: Ranidae) and Rainfall, 150 Am.
Midland Naturalist 185 (2003)...................:ccccccee 18

Joshua J. Lawler et al., Projected Climate Im-
pacts for the Amphibians of the Western Hem-
isphere, 24 Conservation Biology 38 (2010) ........... 18

Norman E. Leonard et al., Survey for Rana
sevosa and Abystoma tigrinum, Two Critically
Imperiled (S1) Pond-Breeding Amphibians in
St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana (2003)............ 22, 26

D. Bruce Means & Ryan C. Means, Effects of
Sand Pine Silviculture on Pond-breeding Am-
phibians in the Woodville Karst Plain of North
Florida, in Amphibians and Reptiles: Status
and Conservation in Florida 56 (Walter E. Me-
shaka & Kimberly J. Babbitt, eds., Krieger

EE 25
Joseph C. Mitchell, Comments (2011)........................ 23

National Council for Air and Stream Improve-
ment, Final Report, Southeast Coastal Plain
Amphibian Survey, NFWF Project #97-074

M. Graham Netting & Coleman J. Goin, Addi-
tional notes on Rana sevosa, 1942 Copeia 259......... 7

iv
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Joseph H.K. Pechmann et al., Amphibian Colo-
nization and Use of Ponds Created for Trial
Mitigation of Wetland Loss, 21 Wetlands 93
(2001), https://srelherp.uga.edu/projects/docs/

rbay/RefugePonds-200 1 . pdf ...................ccccceeeeeeeeeees 20
Joseph H.K. Pechmann, Peer Review Comments
Gora ctinniincbusocpanhinenicnnsectinenenstinsnagiananiappaseinaiiaii 12, 14, 17

Joseph H.K. Pechmann et al., Research on Con-
servation and Recovery of the Endangered
Dusky (Mississippi) Gopher Frog, Period of
Performance: 1 January 2012-31 December
2016 (2017) (unpublished report, on file with
ee iniesisisdevssindiaieinsorcaroianiticateiaiipeiinseataeinsiahiinitine 8,9, 17

Joseph H.K. Pechmann et al., Research on Con-
servation and Recovery of the Endangered
Dusky (Mississippi) Gopher Frog, Period of Per-
formance: 1 January 2017-22 February 2018
(unpublished report, on file with author)............ 8, 22

Joseph H.K. Pechmann et al., Survey for Criti-
cally Imperiled (S1) Pond-Breeding Amphibi-
ans in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana
Fee iresinsipusccsnnsniininmmatectstepenatnieusiuiienmnentiin 11, 13, 22

Stephen C. Richter & Richard A. Seigel, Annual
Variation in the Population Ecology of the En-
dangered Gopher Frog, Rana sevosa Goin and
Netting, 2002 Copeia 962 ................cccccccceeeeeeeeeeeeeees 14

Stephen C. Richter et al., Genetic Consequences
of Population Reduction and Geographic Iso-

Vv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page
Stephen C. Richter, Peer Review Comments
SITE Nidacnsccsssapeuibaldusesiniehediubdnnmebennciinbuschenstaqunbditianmieton 19
Stephen C. Richter, Peer Review Comments
Te cbse chinddvainiinennianinsenesetinbiangeidslaeniseialieiétbndammmncrentens 20

Stephen C. Richter et al., Postbreeding Move-
ments of the Dark Gopher Frog, Rana sevosa
Goin and Netting: Implications for Conserva-
tion and Management, 35 J. Herpetology 316

Stephen C. Richter et al., Stochastic Variation in
Reproductive Success of a Rare Frog, Rana
sevosa: Implications for Conservation and for
Monitoring Amphibian Populations, 111 Bio-
logical Conservation 171 (2003) .....................c0:000 14

Stephen C. Richter & John B. Jensen, Rana
sevosa Goin and Netting, 1940, in Amphibian
Declines 584 (Michael Lannoo ed., Univ. of
Cal. Press 2005), excerpt available at https://

amphibiaweb.org/species/59339 ............... 8, 13, 15, 25
Elizabeth A. Roznik & Steve A. Johnson, Burrow

Use and Survival of Newly Metamorphosed
Gopher Frogs (Rana capito), 43 J. Herpetology
a tnistabianiticttinsipnnianinctidtuantinceviandcobeats 15, 18, 25

vi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued

Page
Richard A. Seigel et al., Using Well Water to In-
crease Hydroperiod as a Management Option
for Pond-Breeding Amphibians, 34 Wildlife
Soc. Bulletin 1022 (2006), https://doi.org/
10.2193/0091-7648(2006)34[1022: UWWTITH]

Michael A. Sisson, Monitoring Reproductive Ac-
tivity of the Mississippi Gopher Frog and
Evaluating Ponds for Suitability as Gopher

Frog Release Sites (2003) ....................scesceeeeeeeees ID
Society for the Study of Amphibians and Rep-
tiles (SSAR), Comments (2011) ........................ 17, 19

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, 2008,
available at http://www.iucnredlist.org/static/
categories _criteria_3_1 ..............ccccceceeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeees 10

Robert A. Thomas & Amelia G. Ballew, Survey
for Dusky Gopher Frog (Rana capito sevosa),
Populations in St. Tammany Parish, Louisi-
ANA: 1996-1997 (1997).........ccccceeeecreceeeeeereees 22, 24, 26

Nicole Y. Thurgate & Joseph H.K. Pechmann,
Canopy Closure, Competition, and the Endan-
gered Dusky Gopher Frog, 71 J. Wildlife Mgmt.

a Pinticiteteresrentesintenesiieneatiinnal 8,11, 15
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5-Year Review:
Summary and Evaluation (2015)....... 8, 9, 10, 21, 23

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mississippi Go-
pher Frog Fact Sheet (2012) .................cccceeceeeeneeeeeees 8

1

INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE'

Amici Curiae are herpetologists who research and
study amphibians and reptiles, with a special empha-
sis on gopher frogs. They are some of the nation’s top
experts in amphibian ecology and retain a strong in-
terest in the conservation of the dusky gopher frog.
They consider the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(FWS’s) critical habitat designation of Unit 1 essential
for the conservation of this species. More information
about the specific interests and qualifications of the ex-

perts is provided below.

Dr. I. Brian Crother is an Edward G. Schlieder
Professor in Environmental Studies and Sustainabil-
ity and is the Assistant Dean of the College of Science
and Technology at Southeastern Louisiana University.
He coauthored (with Dr. Jeanne Young) the study that
elevated Rana sevosa to a species and has coauthored
other work on dusky gopher frogs. His over 100 publi-
cations mostly have covered the ecology and evolution
of amphibians and reptiles, including specific long
term surveys of amphibians and reptiles in southeast-
ern Louisiana wetlands.

' The parties’ blanket consent to the filing of amicus briefs
has been lodged with the Clerk of this Court. Pursuant to this
Court’s Rule 37.6, Amici Curiae certify that this brief was not au-
thored in whole or in part by counsel for any party and that no
person or entity other than Amici or their counsel made a mone
tary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission
of this brief.

2

Dr. C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr. received his Ph.D. in
Zoology at Clemson University, Clemson, South Caro-
lina, in 1974. Most of his career was with the U.S. De-
partment of Interior: Office of Endangered Species
1976-1984 (as Staff Herpetologist) and the Research
division of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, later
transferred to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS;
1984-2007), where he served as Project Leader of the
USGS Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative
in the southeastern United States. He is currently
Courtesy Associate Professor in the Department of
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation at the University of
Florida. Dr. Dodd has published more than 220 papers,
reviews, and books, mostly on reptile and amphibian
ecology, conservation, and management. His book
Frogs of the United States and Canada was published
by Johns Hopkins University Press in 2013, and an ed-
ited volume Amphibian Ecology and Conservation: A
Handbook of Techniques was published by Oxford Uni-
versity Press in 2010.

Dr. Steve A. Johnson is an Associate Professor
of Wildlife Ecology at the University of Florida in
Gainesville. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of
Florida and B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University
of Central Florida. Dr. Johnson’s area of expertise is
natural history and conservation of amphibians and
reptiles. Prior to his employment at UF, he worked as
a Research Wildlife Biologist for the US Geological
Survey’s Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initia-
tive. He and his students have studied gopher frogs in
northern Florida for more than 20 years. In 2018, he

3

received the Paul Moler Herpetological Conservation
Award for his career-long commitment to conservation

of amphibians and reptiles.

Dr. Michael Lannoo is a professor at Indiana
University and an affiliate of the Illinois Natural His-
tory Survey at the University of Illinois, and Purdue
University. Over the past decade, he has published 29
papers on the biology of crawfish frogs (Rana areola-
tus), sister species to the gopher frog group. Subjects of
these papers include natural history (burrow habita-
tion, timing of breeding, breeding migrations, climate
effects), ecology (demographics, metapopulation dy-
namics), population survey methods, genetics, disease,
and colonization and use of post-industrial landscapes.
In 2001, he received the Parker/Gentry Award for Ex-
cellence and Innovation in Conservation Biology from
The Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL.
This award honors “an outstanding individual, team or
organization whose efforts are distinctive and coura-
geous and have had a significant impact on preserving
the world’s natural heritage, and whose actions and
approaches can serve as a model to others.”

Dr. Joseph C. Mitchell is currently a research
associate with the Florida Museum of Natural History
and partially retired. His Ph.D. is in ecology from the
University of Tennessee. He owns his own environmen-
tal consulting business. He has worked on a wide array
of conservation issues for the U.S. Forest Service, Fish
and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, 20 Navy
and Marine installations for the Department of De-
fense, The Nature Conservancy, and numerous private

4

environmental companies on private lands. Most of his
150 reports to these agencies are on conservation is-
sues involving amphibians (frogs and salamanders).
He served the NGO Partners in Amphibian and Rep-
tile Conservation (PARC) Management Working
Group as member and chair (2000-2009). He origi-
nated the acclaimed Habitat Management Guidelines
for Amphibians and Reptiles in the United States se-
ries for PARC. He has written over 400 scientific arti-
cles, wildlife magazine articles, natural history notes,
book reviews, and eight books.

Dr. Stephen C. Richter is a Professor of Biology
and Associate Director of the Division of Natural Areas
at Eastern Kentucky University. He has been studying
gopher frogs since 1995, served as a peer reviewer for
the FWS’s critical habitat designation, and has pub-
lished 16 of his 49 scientific papers and book chapters
on the natural history, population genetics, and conser-
vation biology of gopher frogs. He has co-taught
courses on wetland restoration, and his primary re-
search (13 publications to date) is heavily focused on
wetlands, amphibians that require ephemeral wet-
lands for successful reproduction (similar to gopher
frogs), and best management practices for wetland res-
toration.

Dr. Richard A. Seigel is Professor of Biology in
the Department of Biological Sciences at Towson Uni-
versity in Maryland. He received his B.S. in Zoology &
Physiology from Rutgers University, his M.S. in Biol-
ogy from the University of Central Florida, and his

5

Ph.D. in Systematics and Ecology from the University
of Kansas. His major research interests are in the pop-
ulation ecology and conservation biology of amphibi-
ans and reptiles, especially snakes, turtles, and frogs.
He has published over 90 peer-revised papers and five
books on the ecology and conservation of amphibians
and reptiles and was named the winner of the 2013
Paul Moler Herpetological Conservation Award from
the Florida Chapter of the Wildlife Society. He was the
lead researcher on the ecological studies of the dusky
gopher frog in Mississippi from 1995-2001.

Dr. William Sutton is an Assistant Professor of
Wildlife Ecology at Tennessee State University in
Nashville, Tennessee. Dr. Sutton’s research program
focuses primarily on the impacts of disturbance (natu-
ral and anthropogenic disturbances) on wildlife popu-
lations. His research also includes habitat modeling for
rare and endangered species, such as amphibians and
reptiles. In addition to his academic responsibilities,
Dr. Sutton is involved with the Southeastern Partners
in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation (SEPARC)
and has served as the co-chair and long-term steering
committee member. Dr. Sutton has worked with the
dusky gopher frog in the context of evaluating the sus-
ceptibility of the species to amphibian pathogens, in-
cluding ranaviruses.

Dr. Nikki Thurgate is a senior research fellow
at La Trobe University. She holds a B.S. from James
Cook University and a Ph.D. from the University of
New Orleans. She has expertise in animal ecology and

6

management. She has worked on a number of endan-
gered species globally to try to understand why certain
species become extinct while others persist. Her Ph.D.
research was on dusky gopher frogs in Mississippi (6
years) and she went on to work with gopher frogs in
North Carolina for an additional 3 years.

Dr. Jeanne Young holds a B.S. from Louisiana
State University, a M.S. from Southeastern Louisiana
University and a Ph.D. from Charles Darwin Univer-
sity. She has expertise in ecological physiology and evo-
lutionary biology of reptiles and amphibians. Her M.S.
investigated reproduction, movement patterns and
population genetics of gopher frogs. Her Ph.D. research
investigated evolutionary and physiological correlates
of ecology of hylid frogs in the Northern Territory of
Australia.

a
a

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The dusky gopher frog is at extremely high risk of
extinction in the wild. With only one viable population
in Mississippi facing a myriad of identifiable but un-
predictable threats such as drought and disease, it is
essential that populations outside of Mississippi be es-
tablished. Unit 1 was home to dusky gopher frogs in
the mid-1960s, is distant enough from the existing pop-
ulations that it would likely be unaffected by events
which pose a risk to the continued existence of the Mis-
sissippi populations, and contains the rare ephemeral

7

ponds which serve as breeding habitat for the dusky
gopher frog. The rarity of these ponds in the dusky go-
pher frog’s historical range and the difficulty of creat-
ing them render the ponds and their surrounding
uplands essential for conservation of this species. Unit
1 also contains upland habitat, which, while not ideal,
is nonetheless suitable for the dusky gopher frog and
can be restored to optimal conditions.

¢

ARGUMENT

I. The Dusky Gopher Frog is Critically En-
dangered.

The dusky gopher frog (also referred to as the
Mississippi gopher frog), Rana sevosa (= Lithobates
sevosus), historically occupied three states — Louisiana,
Mississippi, and Alabama — and was once abundant in
coastal Mississippi.” The species was historically fairly
common in distribution, but a drastic loss of habitat

* AR 33 (M. Graham Netting & Coleman J. Goin, Additional
notes on Rana sevosa, 1942 Copeia 259, 259); AR 963 (Michael A.
Sisson, Monitoring Reproductive Activity of the Mississippi Go
pher Frog and Evaluating Ponds for Suitability as Gopher Frog
Release Sites 1 (2003)); AR 1562 (Stephen C. Richter et al., Genetic
Consequences of Population Reduction and Geographic Isolation
in the Critically Endangered Frog, Rana sevosa, 2009 Copeia 799,
801, 802).

8

has decimated the population.’ Estimates at the time
of the critical habitat designation number the total
adult population at only approximately 100 individual
frogs in Mississippi.*

Currently, a single viable population of the dusky
gopher frog is known to exist, a natural population in
a pond in the DeSoto National Forest in southern Mis-
sissippi known as Glen’s Pond.* Recently, the Glen’s
Pond population has not thrived: in 2016 only 11 juve-
nile frogs were counted in surveys of Glen’s Pond, and
in 2017 surveys reflected that no natural juveniles
were produced at Glen’s Pond.*® At the time of critical

* Stephen C. Richter & John B. Jensen, Rana sevosa Goin
and Netting, 1940, in Amphibian Declines 584, 584 (Michael
Lannoo ed., Univ. of Cal. Press 2005), excerpt available at
https//am phibiaweb.org/species/5939; AR 1243-1244 (Nicole Y.
Thurgate & Joseph H.K. Pechmann, Canopy Closure, Competi-
tion, and the Endangered Dusky Gopher Frog, 71 J. Wildlife Mgmt.
1845, 1845-1846 (2007)).

* AR 2146 (US. Fish & Wildlife Service, Mississippi Gopher
Frog Fact Sheet 2 (2012)). In its 2015 5-Year Review, FWS esti-
mated the total number of adult frogs at that time to be 160,
though the vast majority of those individuals — 135 — are reported
as occurring in only one location: Glen’s Pond. U.S. Fish and Wild-
life Service, 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation 8-9 (2015)
(“5-Year Review”).

® See Joseph H.K. Pechmann et al., Research on Conserva-
tion and Recovery of the Endangered Dusky (Mississippi) Gopher
Frog, Period of Performance: 1 January 2012-31 December 2016
3-4 (2017) (unpublished report, on file with the author); 5-Year
Review at 3.

* Pechmann et al., supra note 5, at 3; Joseph H.K. Pechmann
et al., Research on Conservation and Recovery of the Endangered
Dusky (Mississippi) Gopher Frog, Period of Performance: 1

9

habitat designation, two other small, vulnerable popu-
lations existed in Mississippi near Glen’s Pond: 1)
Mike’s Pond, the only known existing natural popula-
tion outside of Glen’s Pond, located approximately 20
miles east of Glen’s Pond, and 2) McCoy’s Pond, located
approximately 16 miles east of Mike’s Pond.’

The last remaining breeding population of dusky
gopher frogs at Glen’s Pond represents the only viable
population within what was historically a complex
metapopulation, which contained multiple connected
populations with breeding wetlands across a landscape
of continuous upland habitat.* FWS defines a viable
population as “one that is large enough to maintain
sufficient genetic variation to enable it to evolve and
respond to natural habitat and environmental
changes, and exhibits parameters consistent with a
stable or increasing reproductive rate, without the ad-
dition of frogs raised in artificial environments or

January 2017-22 February 2018 6 (unpublished report, on file
with author).

’ JA. 148; see also 5-Year Review at 9 (citing distances be-
tween ponds). The population at McCoy's Pond is likely extinct.
Id. (“No dusky gopher frogs have been observed at [McCoy’s Pond)
since a frog was heard calling there in 2004.”). The population at
Mike’s Pond may be extinct as well. Jd. (citing 2013 as last record
of the frog at Mike’s Pond); see also Pechmann et al., supra note 5.
tion efforts at several sites in Mississippi, including at a pond es-
tablished by The Nature Conservancy, but none of these
populations are established and self-sustaining. Pechmann et al.,
supra note 5.

® AR 1552, 1554 (Richter et al., supra note 2, at 802, 804).

10

introduced from other populations.” Dusky gopher
frogs are pond breeding amphibians and each subpop-
ulation is organized around a breeding pond and the
adjoining upland habitat. Each subpopulation in turn
interacts with the various adjoining subpopulations.
The resulting network of connectivity between ponds
and subpopulations establishes a metapopulation
structure across the wider landscape."°

It is because of this very small total number of
frogs with only one known viable population that the
US. Fish and Wildlife Service correctly listed the spe-
cies as Endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species
Act, and the International Union for Conservation of
Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) listed it as Crit-
ically Endangered on its Red List."' A species is consid-
ered Critically Endangered when it is “facing an
extremely high risk of extinction in the wild.” Data
indicate that the dusky gopher frog is one of the most

® 5-Year Review at 34.

* AR 1552 (Richter et al., supra note 2, at 802). FWS accu-
rately states: “To be a viable population, a dusky gopher frog pop-
ulation must be a metapopulation.” 5-Year Review at 34
(emphasis omitted).

" Final Rule to List the Mississippi Gopher Frog Distinct
Population Segment of Dusky Gopher Frog as Endangered, 66
Fed. Reg. 62,993, 62,993 (Dec. 4, 2001); The IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species, 2008, http://www.iucnredlist.org/static/
categories_criteria_3_1 (last visited June 27, 2018).

@ Td.

11

endangered, if not the most endangered, species of am-
phibian in the United States.”

The species faces a variety of threats, but FWS
accurately found that the primary threat is the degra-
dation, destruction, and fragmentation of suitable hab-
itat.* As a terrestrial amphibian, the dusky gopher
frog is especially vulnerable to alteration, loss, and
fragmentation of habitat. Thus, FWS has appropri-
ately focused on locating, protecting, and restoring
suitable habitat.

While no dusky gopher frogs have been found in
Louisiana since the mid-1960s or in Alabama since
1922, one of the last observed locations of the dusky
gopher frog in Louisiana was within the critical habi-
tat now designated by the FWS as Unit 1."

AR 1662 (Richard A. Seigel, Comments (2011)); see also AR
1243 (Thurgate & Pechmann, supra note 3).

“™ 66 Fed. Reg. at 62,994.

8 JA. 167 (Designation of Critical Habitat for Dusky Gopher
Frog Final Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 35,118, 35,135 (June 12, 2012)) (“It
is currently unoccupied; however, the last observation of a dusky
gopher frog in Louisiana was in 1965 in one of the ponds within
this unit.”); see also AR 3098-3104; AR 1099, 1103 (Joseph H.K.
Pechmann et al., Survey for Critically Imperiled (S1) Pond-Breed-
ing Amphibians in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana 10, 14 at Table
1 (2006)). An additional record from 1967 reflects the dusky go-
pher frog located in the same area as Unit 1: “Dusky Gopher Frogs
were known from the flatwoods areas north of Lake Pontchar-
train, from near Ponchatoula to Slidell, and north on the table-
land west of the Pearl River to near Bush. They were last found
in Louisiana in 1967 near Hickory, St. Tammany Parish, by grad-
uate students from the University of Louisiana at Lafayette.” Jeff
Boundy & John L. Carr, Amphibians & Reptiles of Louisiana 138

12

Il. Unit 1 is Essential to the Conservation of
the Dusky Gopher Frog.

In 2011, FWS conducted a habitat assessment of
the St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana, property ulti-
mately designated as Unit 1 and found five ephemeral
ponds and associated upland terrestrial habitat.'’* We
agree with the FWS that the 1,544 acres in Unit 1 are
essential for the conservation of the dusky gopher frog.
FWS correctly concluded that the Unit 1 critical habi-
tat is essential for the conservation of the dusky go-
pher frog based on its accurate findings that Unit 1
“provides: (1) breeding habitat for the dusky gopher
frog in a landscape where the rarity of that habitat is
a primary threat to the species; (2) a framework of
breeding ponds that supports metapopulation struc-
ture important to the long-term survival of the dusky
gopher frog; and (3) geographic distance from extant
dusky gopher frog populations, which likely provides
protection from environmental stochasticity.”"”

The ephemeral ponds located in Unit 1 represent

the best remaining breeding habitat for the dusky go-
pher frog known to exist in Louisiana.” Further, the

(La. State Univ. Press 2017); see also J.A. 127 (Alabama historical
record).

*® JA. 160.

JA. 126. FWS uses the term “stochastic” to describe peri-
odic natural events or existing or potential human-induced
events. J.A. 157.

% JA. 53 (Joseph H.K. Pechmann, Peer Review Comments
(2011)) (“The critical habitat proposed in Unit 1 contains the best
gopher frog habitat remaining in Louisiana, to my knowledge, and
some of the best breeding ponds available anywhere in the

13

FWS was correct in concluding that “[blased on the
best scientific information available to the Service, the
five ponds in Unit 1 provide breeding habitat that in
its totality is not known to be present elsewhere within
the historic range of the dusky gopher frog.” It is in-
disputable that the dusky gopher frog was historically
found in Unit 1 and that one of the last known loca-
tions of the frog in Louisiana was in a pond within Unit
1.” If reintroduced to Unit 1, these ponds would sup-
port dusky gopher frog reproduction.

A. The Dusky Gopher Frog’s Breeding Hab-
itat is Rare.

Adult dusky gopher frogs range in size from 56—
105 mm (2.2—4 inches).”" The dusky gopher frog breeds

in small ephemeral ponds that lack fish, and it spends
the majority of its life in and around underground bur-
rows found in the upland forest habitat surrounding
the breeding pond.” The ponds are referred to as

historical range of R. sevosa. I strongly agree with the Service's
determination that this area is essential for the conservation of
R. sevosa.”).

” J.A. 125; see also J.A. 160 (“In fact, no group of five ponds
such as these was found in any of the areas of historical occur-
rence that we have searched in Mississippi.”).

2° AR 1099, 1103 (Pechmann et al., supra note 15); see also
Boundy & Carr, supra note 15 and J.A. 160, 167.

7! Richter & Jensen, supra note 3, at 585.

2 66 Fed. Reg. at 62,994; see also AR 870, 873 (Stephen C.
Richter et al., Postbreeding Movements of the Dark Gopher Frog,
Rana sevosa Goin and Netting: Implications for Conservation and
Management, 35 J. Herpetology 316, 316, 319 (2001)).

14

ephemeral because they fill with water and completely
dry out over a cyclical period of time.” Dusky gopher
frog breeding ponds must be ephemeral and geograph-
ically isolated from other waterbodies in order to en-
sure the absence of predacious fish, which cannot
survive the dry cycle of the pond.” The frog’s breeding
season is directly dependent on the hydrological cycle
of the local ecosystem.” When seasonal winter rainfall
sufficiently fills the shallow ephemeral ponds, the male
frogs move to the ponds and call to the females.” In
years without sufficient rainfall, the males will not
move to the ponds and breeding typically will not oc-

cur.”’
During breeding, females attach clusters of eggs to

vertical emergent vegetation within the pond. After
the breeding cycle, adult frogs return to upland

% JA. 161.

™ See 66 Fed. Reg. at 62,999 (“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.”).

% JA. 151.

26 See AR 895 (Stephen C. Richter & Richard A. Seigel, An-
nual Variation in the Population Ecology of the Endangered Go-
pher Frog, Rana sevosa Goin and Netting, 2002 Copeia 962, 966);
see also AR 945 (Stephen C. Richter et al., Stochastic Variation in
Reproductive Success of a Rare Frog, Rana sevosa: Implications
for Conservation and for Monitoring Amphibian Populations, 111
Biological Conservation 171, 172 (2003)).

27 See AR 898 (Richter & Seigel, supra note 26, at 969); see
also J.A. 52 (Joseph H.K. Pechmann, Peer Review Comments
(2011)).

15

burrows.” Following metamorphosis, juvenile frogs
also move to the burrows in the surrounding upland
habitat.” The ephemeral ponds often dry by early to
mid-summer. Frogs will remain in the upland habitat
until the following breeding season.

Further, the dusky gopher frog requires that the
ponds have an open canopy, and it uses emergent and
submerged vegetation for egg attachment by female
frogs.” Research suggests that open pond canopies are
particularly important as this characteristic has a di-
rect effect on tadpole development and metamorpho-
sis."' Water in the pond must be free of pollution,
suspended sediment, and road runoff as these impuri-
ties impair larval development.” The ephemeral pond
must contain water for sufficient periods to allow ade-
quate time for hatching, development, and metamor-
phosis of the larvae.”

™“ 66 Fed. Reg. at 62,994.

™® J.A. 150; see also AR 1412 (Elizabeth A. Roznik & Steve A.
Joh» on, Burrow Use and Survival of Newly Metamorphosed Go
phe: Frogs (Rana capito), 43 J. Herpetology 431, 432 (2009)).

*” AR 1248 (Thurgate & Pechmann, supra note 3, at 1850);
Richter & Jensen, supra note 3, at 585.

™" AR 1243 (Thurgate & Pechmann, supra note 3).

™ J.A. 152 (“An unpolluted wetland with water free of preda-
ceous fish, suspended sediment, pesticides, and chemicals associ
ated with road runoff is important for egg development, tadpole
growth and development, and successful mating and egg-laying
by adult frogs.”).

* JA. 151, 153; see also AR 1243 (Thurgate & Pechmann, su-
pra note 3, at 1845).

16

This combination of necessary features — ponds
which retain the right amount of water for only limited
days in the year, number several in a particular loca-
tion, are isolated, contain vertical emergent vegeta-
tion, have an open canopy, and contain water free of
pollution — is rare in the dusky gopher frog’s historical
range.™ We agree with the FWS’s focus on this element
of the frog’s habitat because “their rarity in the envi-
ronment is one of the primary reasons that the frog is
endangered.””

B. Habitat Geographically Remote from

the Existing Gopher Frog Populations
is Essential to the Conservation of the

Species.

The gopher frog populations in Mississippi face a
high risk of extinction from stochastic events — threats
posed by disease and other events for which occur-
rences vary in space and time. These include, but are
not limited to, events such as drought or flooding and
genetic bottlenecks and inbreeding associated with low
population sizes.” Due to the gopher frog’s overall! low

™ See JA. 125 (“Isolated, ephemeral ponds that can be used
as the focal point for establishing these populations are rare, and
this is a limiting factor in dusky gopher frog recovery.”); see also
id. (describing unsuccessful searches for similar pond habitat in
Alabama, described as unsuitable because the “ponds contained
woody shrubs and trees, were occupied by fish, occurred within
agricultural fields, and/or were surrounded by trailers and
houses.”).

* JA. 158; see also J.A. 126.
* JA. 115.

17

numbers and its isolation to a relatively small geo-
graphic area, these threats which are typically local-
ized in impact thus loom large over the entire extant
population; a single outbreak poses a risk of extinc-
tion.”

For example, in 2003 a majority of the dusky go-
pher frog tadpoles at Glen’s Pond were killed by an un-
known disease.“ With only one breeding site, the
disease effectively eliminated any population increase
that would have occurred due to reproduction during
the 2003 breeding season.” While this disease did not
appear to impact adult dusky gopher frogs, it continues
to be present in the Glen’s Pond site.”

Drought and decreased rainfall threaten all life
stages of the dusky gopher frog. The amount and tim-
ing of precipitation can have dramatic effects on
ephemeral breeding ponds, even resulting in years
where zero reproduction occurs.*' Additionally, studies
on the related Rana (= Lithobates) capito reflect a

" See J.A. 52-53 (Pechmann, supra note 18 (“Due to the low
number of remaining populations and its very restricted range,
R. sevosa may be at risk of extirpation from events such as
drought or disease which vary over space and time.
sites over the entire range of R. sevosa into which it could be
translocated is essential to decrease the potential risk of extinc
tion of the species from events such as these and provide for the
species’ eventual recovery.”)).

* AR 967 (Sisson, supra note 2, at 5).

” Id.

” Pechmann et al., supra note 5, at 51-52.

* AR 1816 (Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles
(SSAR), Comments 2 (2011)); J.A. 126.

18

significant positive relationship between reproduction
and rainfall during the breeding season.“ Eggs and
larvae are particularly vulnerable to desiccation (dry-
ing out) if sufficient water does not remain in the
ponds, but changes in precipitation may also affect
juvenile and adult survivorship in the frog’s post-
metamorphosis stage when it moves out of the breed-
ing ponds into upland habitat.“ Additionally, climate
change poses a particular threat to the continued ex-
istence of the dusky gopher frog.“ Climate change will
have a heightened impact on dusky gopher frogs and
other amphibians because they cannot easily disperse
to areas with different climate regimes, especially
ers created by fragmented habitats.“ Hydrological

“ AR 1531 (John B. Jensen et al., The Relationship Between
Breeding by the Gopher Frog, Rana capito (Amphibia: Ranidae)
and Rainfall, 150 Am. Midland Naturalist 185, 185 (2003)).

“ Cynthia Carey & Michael A. Aiexander, Climate Change
and Amphibian Declines: Is There a Link? , 9 Diversity and Distri-
butions 111, 114 (2003), https//www.researchgate.net/publication/
230033657 Climate change and amphibian declines Is there
a link (“Because most amphibians lay eggs in standing water,
eggs and larvae are particularly vulnerable to desiccation.”) (in-
ternal citation omitted); J.A. 126 and AR 1416 (Roznik & Johnson,
supra note 29, at 435).

“ AR 1469 (Joshua J. Lawler et al., Projected Climate Im-
pacts for the Amphibians of the Western Hemisphere, 24 Conser-
vation Biology 38, 38 (2010)); see also J.A. 126.

“ Carey & Alexander, supra note 43 (“Because temperature
and moisture have such pervasive effects on amphibian biology,
including reproduction, and because of their limited mobility, am-
phibians should be relatively vulnerable to the effects of rapid cli-
mate change, compared to other terrestrial vertebrates.”).

19

changes to any of the ponds at currently occupied sites
could result in extinction of that population and
threaten survival of the species.“ Thus, as noted by
peer reviewer Stephen Richter: “Multiple breeding
ponds will provide variation in the length of time
ponds hold water (hydroperiod) across the landscape
and will increase probability that reproductive success
occurs in one or more ponds in a given year.”*’

Because of the significant risk posed by drought,
disease and other threats, restricting critical habitat
designation to sites in Mississippi is not sufficient for
conservation of the dusky gopher frog. We agree with
peer reviewer Joseph Pechmann that “Potential R.
sevosa translocation sites must be spread out over as
wide a geographic area as possible because events such
as droughts and disease tend to be spatially autocorre-
lated. Therefore, [the dusky gopher frog] will be less at
risk of extinction if poprlations || are established
across its range in Louisiana and Alabama, rather

“ SSAR Comments, supra note 41, and J.A. 126; see also
Richard A. Seigel et al., Using Well Water to Increase Hydroperiod
as a Management Option for Pond-Breeding Amphibians, 34 Wild-
life Soc. Bulletin 1022, 1025 (2006), https://doi.org/10.2193/009 1 -
7648(2006)34[1022:UWWTIH]2.6.CO;2 (“When populations
become isolated, as is true for dusky gopher frogs at Glen’s Pond,
the effects of annual reproductive failure escalate and can result
in extinction of such isolated populations. When there are only a
limited number of populations, such a local extinction may be un-
acceptable. In fact, R. sevosa appears susceptible to extinction fol.
lowing complete reproductive failure from 4 to 5 consecutive years
of low rainfall.”).

“ AR 1541 (Stephen C. Richter, Peer Review Comments 3
(2010)).

20

than just in southern Mississippi."“ As FWS noted in
its Final Rule: “The scientific peer reviewers that re-
sponded to our original proposed critical habitat rule
were united in their assessment that this proposal was
inadequate for the conservation of the dusky gopher
frog and that we should look within the species’ his-
toric range outside the state of Mississippi for addi-
tional habitat for the designation.””

In sum, the FWS correctly concluded that “Unit 1
is essential to the conservation of the dusky gopher
frog because it provides ... geographic distance from
extant dusky gopher frog populations, which likely
provides protection from environmental stochastic-
ity.””

C. The Unique Qualities of Unit 1 Make It
Essential for the Conservation of the

Dusky Gopher Frog.
Ephemeral ponds are the product of a complex bal-
ance of hydrology and are difficult to artificially cre-
ate.*' FWS describes lengthy efforts it engaged in with

“ J.A. 53; see also J.A. 39 (Stephen C. Richter, Peer Review
Comments (2011)) (“I applaud the proactive designation of multi-
ple areas currently unoccupied by the species but that represent
promising sites for reintroductions to what appear to be historic
breeding ponds and surrounding uplands. These additional sites
truly are essential to the conservation of the species.”).

* JA. 124.

" JA. 126.

*! Joseph H.K. Pechmann et al., Amphibian Colonization and
Use of Ponds Created for Trial Mitigation of Wetland Loss, 21

21

the U.S. Forest Service to create a single ephemeral
pond in the DeSoto National Forest, explaining: “It has
taken 10 years to reach the point where we consider
this pond ready to be used as a reintroduction site, and
its value as a breeding site has not yet been proven.”
We agree with the FWS that “i]t is highly unlikely
that five ponds, similar to those that currently exist in
Unit 1, could be created in the landscape within a
timeframe that would provide near-term conservation

benefits to the dusky gopher frog.”

Thus, the existence and excellent condition of the
five ephemeral ponds in Unit 1 render it essential for
the conservation of the dusky gopher frog. The ponds
are ephemeral and geographically isolated from other
water sources.” As such, they can serve as breeding
habitat and a predator-free site for the larvae and tad-
poles to develop. The ponds are open canopied with

Wetlands 93, 96, 106-107 (2001), https//srelherp.uga.edu/projecta/
doca/rbay/RefugePonds-2001.pdf (describing initial difficulty in
achieving water retention in created pond; that problem was re-
solved by the installation of a plastic liner, which then made the
pond permanent rather than ephemeral); Charlene D’Avanzo,
Long-Term Evaluation of Wetland Creation Projects, in 2 Perspec-
tives, Wetland Creation and Restoration: The Status of the Sci-
ence 75, 75 (John A. Kusler and Mary E. Kentula eds., USEPA
1989), https//www.epa.gov/sites/production/filea/20 15-08/documents/
wetland creation and restoration - the status of the science
vol_2_1.pdf.

" JA. 122-123. This constructed pond has yet to support a
viable population. 5-Year Review at 3, 9-10.

™ JA. 123.
™ JA. 123, 125.

22

good water quality.” Surveys in the 1990s and 2000s
noted that the ephemeral ponds in what is now Unit 1
were “considered similar in appearance (water clarity,
depth, vegetation) to ponds in Mississippi used for
breeding by the dusky gopher frog.” In 2011, FWS
conducted a habitat assessment of Unit 1 and con-
cluded that the five ephemeral ponds were “intact and
remarkable quality” and “determined that [the] five
isolated, ephemeral wetlands in that area are similar
to ponds where dusky gopher frogs currently breed in
Mississippi.””’

Of equal importance to the high quality of Unit 1’s
ephemeral ponds is the existence of several of them
within close proximity of one another. The FWS was
correct in concluding that “the five ponds are in close
enough proximity to each other that adult frogs could
move between them and create a metapopulation.””
This network of five ponds would support separate

°° AR 1097 (Pechmann et al., supra note 6, at 8 (“Water qual-
ity is good in all seven ponds we measured it in. . . .”); id. at 1099
(noting that “open canopy temporary ponds are very rare. The few
open canopy ponds we surveyed included the two historic sites for
R. sevosa we were able to locate.”).

%* J.A. 160 (citing Robert A. Thomas & Amelia G. Ballew, Sur-
vey for Dusky Gopher Frog (Rana capito sevosa), Populations in
St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana: 1996-1997 (1997); Norman E.
Leonard et al., Survey for Rana sevosa and Abystoma tigrinum,
Two Critically Imperiled (S1) Pond-Breeding Amphibians in St.
Tammany Parish, Louisiana (2003); and Joseph H.K. Pechmann
et al., Survey for Critical Imperiled (S1) Pond-Breeding Amphibi-
ans in St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana (2006)).

5” J.A. 124-125, 160.

JA. 167.

23

breeding subpopulations and could result in the emer-
gence of a metapopulation within the geographic area
of Unit 1.° Outside of Glen’s Pond, this framework is
unique within the historical range of the dusky gopher
frog and, therefore, essential.”

D. Unit 1 is Essential Despite Its Lack of
Optimal Upland Habitat.

The FWS correctly identified upland forested non-
breeding habitat and upland habitat connecting the
breeding and nonbreeding habitat as primary ele-
ments of dusky gopher frog habitat.” Unit 1 possesses
upland forest nonbreeding habitat and connectivity
habitat, though not in optimal conditions.

Essentially, as FWS stated, the frog’s upland non-
breeding habitat must provide for “food, shelter, and
protection from the elements and predation.”” Tradi-
tionally, the dusky gopher frog’s upland habitat con-
sisted of longleaf pine savannah, and this remains
optimal for the frog’s upland habitat, leading FWS to
describe the existing loblolly pine plantation upland

*° Id.; see also AR 1664 (Joseph C. Mitchell, Comments 1
(2011)).

* JA. 125. The cattle watering tanks being used to artifi-
cially raise tadpoles to metamorphosis are not a replacement for
the ephemeral pond breeding habitat. These tanks can only be
used in conjunction with wild breeding ponds, where scientists
gather the frog eggs and ultimately release the metamorphs. See
5-Year Review at 7.

* JA. 153-154.

* Id. at 153.

24

habitat on Unit 1 as poor quality terrestrial habitat.”
However, FWS also accurately concluded that the Unit
1 uplands are restorable to longleaf pine with reason-
able effort.”

Further, even in its current state, Unit 1’s uplands
could provide the necessary food, shelter, and protec-
tion from the elements and predation that the dusky
gopher frog requires. In other words, it is currently
suitable upland habitat. First, evidence indicates that
Unit 1 already has stump holes, which the frog uses for
shelter from predators and protection from desiccation
and extreme temperatures. Dr. Joseph Pechmann’s
field notes from his Unit 1 site visit in 2011 identified
the existence of “some stumps and stump holes around
pond.””

Second, a number of sources document gopher
frogs living on less than ideal upland habitat, includ-
ing pine plantations. A report produced by the Na-
tional Council for Air and Stream Improvement found
that the Carolina gopher frog — Rana capito — was pre-
sent at 17 ponds on forest industry lands, i.e., pine
plantations.” The report stated: “Gopher frogs (17

® Id. at 160.

™ Id. at 167.

* AR 3101; see also J.A. 14. A 1997 survey also noted the
presence of armadillo burrows on the Unit 1 uplands, which the
researchers indicated “should substitute.” AR 559 (Thomas &
Ballew, supra note 56, at 6).

* National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Final
Report, Southeast Coastal Plain Amphibian Survey, NFWF

25

ponds) were not common |on forest industry lands], but
were identified at ponds more often than some other
species perceived as relatively common.”™’ Rana capito
has also been documented to live on intensely man-
aged Florida pine plantations, albeit at significantly
lower levels than on adjacent national forest lands.”
This demonstrates that commercial pine plantations
can serve as terrestrial habitat for Rana capito,
although they would not be considered optimal habitat
for this species either. Rana sevosa and R. capito are
closely related sister species which have very similar
habitat requirements.” Beyond pine plantations,
Rana capito has also been documented living in
heterogeneous upland habitat that includes fire-
suppressed, closed-canopy pines clumped together
near breeding ponds.” The study documented juvenile
frogs moving from breeding ponds to both open-canopy

Project #97-074 (1999) Table 2 (unpublished report, on file with
author).

* Id. at 33.

“ D. Bruce Means & Ryan C. Means, Effects of Sand Pine
Suviculture on Pond-breeding Amphibians in the Wagduille Karst
Plain of North Florida, in Amphibians and Reptiles: Status and
Conservation in Florida 56, 58 (Walter E. Meshaka & Kimberly J.
Babbitt, eds., Krieger Publishing Co. 2005).

® Richter & Jensen, supra note 3; see also AR 1412 (Roznik
& Johnson, supra note 29, at 431).

” AR 1413, 1416 (Roznik & Johnson, supra note 29, at 432,
435).

26

and closed-canopy upland areas; juveniles from both
groups survived.”

Third, the fact that the dusky gopher frog was doc-
umented in Unit 1 twice in the mid-1960s demon-
strates that the dusky gopher frog persisted in Unit 1
for decades while it was a pine plantation.” Indeed, the
authors of a 1997 survey of the land now designated as
Unit 1, who viewed the ponds and their surrounding
upland habitat, commented: “There is no reason to be-
lieve that the land cannot support Dusky Gopher
Frogs.” The authors of a 2006 survey of St. Tammany
Parish ponds, which included Unit 1, stated the follow-
ing regarding the near universal presence of pine plan-
tations at all the St. Tammany sites: “(I]t is likely that
pine plantations represent a type of land use far more
preferable to amphibians than residential housing or
more intensive types of agriculture.”

Finally, because all but two percent of the original
longleaf pine forests within the historic range of the
frog have been destroyed, FWS must find and restore

"™ AR at 1413-1414, 1416. In fact, although juvenile Rana
capito frogs prefer open-canopy upland habitat, the study re-
flected that the survival rate was higher for the juveniles in the
closed-canopy upland habitat over those in the open canopy up-
lands. Id. at 1415-1417.

™ JA. 167; see also AR 3098-3104; Boundy & Carr, supra note
15; and J.A. 32 (P&F Lumber, Comment (2011) (noting that the
Poitevent patriarch acquired the property in the 1880s and
formed a lumber company)).

™ AR 557 (Thomas & Ballew, supra note 56, at 4).

™ AR 936 (Leonard et al., supra note 56, at 6).

27

degraded upland habitats if the dusky gopher frog is to
recover.” Therefore, while the upland habitat in Unit
1 may not be ideal, it contains elements required by
the dusky gopher frog, and those elements in less than
optimal condition are restorable with a reasonable ef-
fort.

°

CONCLUSION

This Court should affirm the judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
upholding FWS’s designation of Unit 1 as critical hab-
itat, as Unit 1 is essential for the conservation of the
dusky gopher frog.

Respectfully submitted this 6th day of July, 2018,

Lisa W. JORDAN

Counsel of Record

TULANE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CLINIC

TULANE LAW SCHOOL

6329 Freret Street

New Orleans, LA 70118

(504) 314-2481

lwjordan@tulane.edu

Counsel for Amici Curiae Gopher Frog Experts

See 66 Fed. Reg. at 62,995.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0771%3A42. Public record. Not legal advice.