14958 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR What this document does. This final interested parties and invited them to rule will add the Louisiana pinesnake comment on the proposal. We did not Fish and Wildlife Service (Pituophis ruthveni) as a threatened receive any requests for a public species to the List of Endangered and hearing. All substantive information 50 CFR Part 17 Threatened Wildlife in title 50 of the provided during comment periods has [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2016–0121; Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR either been incorporated directly into 4500030113] 17.11(h). this final determination or addressed The basis for our action. Under the below. RIN 1018–BB46 Endangered Species Act, we may determine that a species is an Peer Reviewer Comments Endangered and Threatened Wildlife endangered or threatened species based In accordance with our peer review and Plants; Threatened Species Status on any of five factors: (A) The present for Louisiana Pinesnake policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR or threatened destruction, modification, 34270), we solicited expert opinion AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) from six knowledgeable individuals Interior. overutilization for commercial, with scientific expertise that included ACTION: Final rule. recreational, scientific, or educational familiarity with Louisiana pinesnake purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) and its habitat, biological needs, and SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and the inadequacy of existing regulatory threats, and experience studying other Wildlife Service (Service), determine mechanisms; or (E) other natural or pinesnake species. We received threatened species status under the manmade factors affecting its continued responses from all of the peer reviewers. Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), existence. We have determined that the We reviewed all comments we as amended, for Louisiana pinesnake Louisiana pinesnake is threatened received from the peer reviewers for (Pituophis ruthveni), a reptile species primarily because of the past and substantive issues and new information from Louisiana and Texas. The effect of continuing loss, degradation, and regarding the listing of Louisiana this regulation will be to add this fragmentation of habitat in association pinesnake. The peer reviewers generally species to the List of Endangered and with incompatible silviculture, fire concurred with our presentation of the Threatened Wildlife. suppression, road and right-of-way known life history, habitat needs, and DATES: This rule is effective May 7, construction, and urbanization (Factor distribution of the species, and provided 2018. A), and the magnified vulnerability of additional information, clarifications, all the small, isolated, genetically ADDRESSES: This final rule is available and suggestions to improve this final compromised extant populations to on the internet at http:// rule. Peer reviewer comments are mortality events, including vehicle www.regulations.gov in Docket No. addressed in the following summary strikes and from predators (Factors C FWS–R4–ES–2016–0121 and https:// and incorporated into the final rule as and E). appropriate. www.fws.gov/lafayette/. Comments and Peer review and public comment. We Two of the six peer reviewers materials we received, as well as sought comments from independent commented that overall, the proposed supporting documentation we used in specialists to ensure that our rule was a thorough review of what is preparing this rule, are available for determination is based on scientifically currently known about the Louisiana public inspection at http:// sound data, assumptions, and analyses. pinesnake, and another reviewer stated www.regulations.gov and will be We invited these peer reviewers to that the Service had used the best available by appointment, during comment on our listing proposal. We available science. One reviewer noted normal business hours at: U.S. Fish and also considered all comments and that information on life-history Wildlife Service, Louisiana Ecological information received during the attributes and potential threats was Services Office, 646 Cajundome comment periods. Boulevard, Suite 400; 337–291–3101; limited, but he stated his support for the 337–291–3139. Previous Federal Action Service’s proposed listing of the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please refer to the proposed listing Louisiana pinesnake as threatened. Joseph Ranson, Field Supervisor, U.S. rule for the Louisiana pinesnake, which Three peer reviewers stated that the Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana was published on October 6, 2016 (81 Louisiana pinesnake was declining, and Ecological Services Field Office (see FR 69454), for a detailed description of two of those three thought that the ADDRESSES above). Persons who use a previous Federal actions concerning this species should be listed as endangered telecommunications device for the deaf species. rather than threatened. Specific (TDD) may call the Federal Relay substantive comments from peer Service at 800–877–8339. Summary of Comments and reviewers, and our responses, follow: Recommendations SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (1) Comment: Two peer reviewers In the proposed rule published on recommended that trapping effort Executive Summary October 6, 2016 (81 FR 69454), we should be included when discussing Why we need to publish a rule. Under requested that all interested parties numbers of individuals captured in the Endangered Species Act, as submit written comments on the areas receiving beneficial management amended (‘‘Act’’ or ‘‘ESA’’; 16 U.S.C. proposal by December 5, 2016. We versus areas not receiving beneficial 1531 et seq.), a species may warrant reopened the comment period on management in the Bienville protection through addition to the Lists October 6, 2017 (82 FR 46748), with our population. One peer reviewer also of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife publication of a document announcing cautioned that when we reported and Plants (listing) if it is endangered or a 6-month extension of the final listing trapping success for the whole Bienville threatened throughout all or a determination. This second 30-day population, we did not indicate that two significant portion of its range. Listing a comment period ended on November 6, of the three sites being trapped are being species as an endangered or threatened 2017. We also contacted appropriate managed to benefit the Louisiana species may be completed only by Federal and State agencies, scientific pinesnake and much of the surrounding issuing a rule. experts and organizations, and other habitat is unsuitable for the species.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 14959

Our Response: We agree that trapping were forested and characterized as (5) Comment: Two peer reviewers effort is important when making higher quality. Regarding soils, we stated that, although no verified records comparisons across sites. We have know that some trapping areas were not of Louisiana pinesnake occur from added capture-per-unit effort (i.e., trap located on preferred or suitable soils, Grant Parish, Louisiana, where the success) where we made comparisons of especially before Wagner et al. (2014); reintroduction population is located, the capture numbers among sites in however, the vast majority of all traps species likely occurred there historically Bienville. We also clarified which two (84%) are located on preferred or as there are occurrence records in sites in the Bienville area are being suitable soils. So while some potential parishes immediately north and south of managed to benefit the Louisiana Louisiana pinesnakes areas may have Grant Parish. pinesnake, and indicate that trap been overlooked, the method used to Our Response: We relied on the success has been much greater in those delineate EOHAs is valid and represents county and parish occurrence records in two areas compared to a third site that the species’ known locations as Louisiana and Texas to describe the is not managed to benefit the species. accurately as possible with the best historical range of the species, and agree (2) Comment: One peer reviewer available data. We have always that it is likely that the Louisiana stated that trap-days provide only a recognized that there may still be pinesnake occurred in at least some relative index with unknown precision undiscovered individuals and the portions of Grant Parish, Louisiana, and thus cannot be used to estimate threatened status extends to wherever based on its known occurrences in population size. The reviewer also the species is found. parishes nearby. contended that, without a population (4) Comment: One peer reviewer and (6) Comment: One peer reviewer size or vital rates for the species, no one other commenter stated that the stated that the small size of the two core minimum population size or minimum proposed rule does not discuss management areas (CMAs), Kepler and area required for population persistence consideration of distinct populations of Sandylands, within the Bienville EOHA can be estimated. the Louisiana pinesnake for separate should be emphasized. That reviewer Our Response: We acknowledge the listing status. They argue that the Texas estimated that fewer than 100 limitations of using trap-days, and by and Louisiana populations represent individuals could live there, and that extension trap success values, for distinct population segments and that neither the Bienville nor the Scrappin’ estimating population size. Because of the Texas populations should be listed Valley populations have enough habitat that limitation, we do not offer any as endangered. to support a viable population. quantitative estimation of population Our Response: According to our DPS Our Response: We have clearly stated numbers or minimum habitat area in the policy, for a population to be a distinct the size of the two CMAs within the rule. We use trap-days as a tool for population segment it must be both Bienville EOHA both in terms of acreage relative comparisons between sites. discrete (either markedly separate from and as a percentage of the total area of (3) Comment: One peer reviewer other populations of the same taxon, or the EOHA. Based on the best available advised caution in using trapping delimited by international boundaries) information, we could not determine results to determine Louisiana and significant. To be significant, the whether the Bienville population or any pinesnake EOHAs because much population: (a) May persist in a unique other population is viable or not or what trapping was done prior to knowledge of or unusual ecological setting; (b) would, the minimum required habitat size may the species’ soil preferences (Wagner et if lost, result in a significant gap in the be. al. 2014 and the Landscape-scaled range; (c) is the only surviving natural (7) Comment: One peer reviewer and Resource Selection Functions Model occurrence of a taxon that may be more several other commenters believe that (LRSF model)), and because the criteria abundant elsewhere as an introduced the Service should determine used to rank habitat quality for the population outside its historical range; endangered rather than threatened purpose of identifying additional sites and (d) differs markedly from other status for the Louisiana pinesnake. The to conduct surveys in the Rudolph et al. populations of the species in its genetic peer reviewer mentioned that there have (2006) study may not have accurately characteristics. As required by the been minimal conservation reflected actual habitat use by the policy, we first considered the accomplishments concerning the species. The peer reviewer also stated discreteness of the Texas and Louisiana Louisiana pinesnake since it was first that recent trapping records show that populations. We determined that they identified as a candidate species 34 Louisiana pinesnakes are frequently were discrete due to the physical barrier years ago, and that the conclusions cited trapped in areas not resembling a of the Sabine River and the lack of in the rule are not adequate to support mature forest, even though they have continuous suitable habitat between the a threatened listing. otherwise desirable habitat Texas and Louisiana populations. We Our Response: The Act defines an characteristics. Therefore, potential then looked at the significance of the endangered species as any species that trapping areas may have been Texas population. The habitat is the is ‘‘in danger of extinction throughout overlooked. same, so there is no unusual or unique all or a significant portion of its range’’ Our Response: We agree soil types ecological setting for the species. The and a threatened species as any species and the current understanding of the Texas population makes up only 19 ‘‘that is likely to become endangered species’ habitat preferences affected the percent of the total occurrence record, throughout all or a significant portion of selection of trapping areas and, so its loss would not result in a its range within the foreseeable future.’’ therefore, the delineation of estimated significant gap in the range of the The determination to list the Louisiana occupied habitat for the Louisiana species. The genetics of both the Texas pinesnake as threatened was based on pinesnake. While some sites with no and Louisiana populations do not differ the best available scientific and forested habitat may have been markedly from other populations of the commercial data on its status, based on excluded because they were presumed species in characteristics. Therefore, it the immediacy, severity, and scope of to have a poorer quality habitat, we have does not meet the significance criteria the existing and potential threats and no evidence that the number of for being a DPS. The listable entity is ongoing conservation actions (see untrapped sites that were potentially the species, and we have determined Determination section, below). We inhabited but not forested was greater that the species is threatened species found that an endangered species status than the number of untrapped sites that throughout its entire range. was not appropriate for the Louisiana

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 14960 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

pinesnake because, while threats to the occurs mostly on private and restricted incorrectly considered conservation species were significant, ongoing, and access lands, and does not overwinter in planning on reasonably sized habitat occurring mostly range-wide, multiple communal den sites (making it difficult blocks, in addition to likely occupation populations continue to occur within for humans to find), based on the best by the species, as the method to the species’ range, and for all the available information illegal collection delineate the EOHAs. populations, some occupied habitat is is not a threat to the species. Similarly, Our Response: As described in the currently being managed to provide no further data were provided during proposed rule, EOHAs were delineated more suitable habitat for the species. the comment periods to show that around Louisiana pinesnake verified While it may be difficult to determine intentional killing by humans was a occurrence records obtained after to the ultimate success of these threat. Therefore, we concluded that 1993 (when more extensive trapping conservation actions, we know that neither illegal collection nor intentional began) excluding records older than 11 discussions between the Service and our killing by humans are threats to the years (the estimated Louisiana public lands partners, in particular, species. pinesnake generational turnover period have resulted in new language within (9) Comment: Two peer reviewers, a (Marti 2014, pers. comm.)), when traps formal management plans that will State agency, and other commenters within 0.6 mi (1 km) of following at protect and enhance Louisiana claim that the Louisiana pinesnake is least 5 years of unsuccessful trap effort. pinesnake habitat. For example, the likely extirpated in Texas due to lack of The method and criteria used by the Joint Readiness Training Center and records in several years despite Service to determine EOHAs are Fort Polk have amended their integrated extensive trapping efforts. Some somewhat different from what the peer natural resources management plan to commenters thought that the Service reviewer used (Rudolph et al. 2016). provide for the protection and should make a statement of extirpation. Whereas both incorporate a 1-km buffer management of the Louisiana pinesnake Our Response: The Service, after around a minimum convex polygon and its habitat. In addition, the Service, discussion with researchers (MCP) to account for within-home-range U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the knowledgeable about the Louisiana movement of individuals occurring at Department of Defense, the Texas Parks pinesnake, determined a method based the periphery of the MCP, the peer and Wildlife Department, the Louisiana on occurrence records and trapping reviewer developed MCPs of occupied Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, effort to estimate the area occupied by habitat based on Louisiana pinesnake the Natural Resources Conservation the Louisiana pinesnake (see Historical occurrences documented only within Service, and the Association of Zoos and Current Distribution section). the 5-year intervals that each of the and Aquariums (AZA) are cooperators According to that method, we still polygons represent. As noted by the in a candidate conservation agreement recognize two areas that we believe to peer reviewer, the Service’s method is (CCA) for the Louisiana pinesnake that be occupied in Texas. Species listed less conservative in how it assumes allows the partnering agencies to work under the ESA are protected wherever records relate to the presence of an cooperatively on projects to avoid and found. animal. The peer reviewer’s method minimize impacts to the species and to (10) Comment: One peer reviewer assumes that an individual that identify and establish beneficial habitat disagreed with the Service’s use of the occurred in one 5-year interval was not management actions for the species on term ‘‘population’’ to describe the present during the next 5-year interval certain lands in Louisiana and Texas. snakes in the Reintroduction Feasibility unless it was recaptured. The Service Some private landowners also maintain Study as too optimistic, as there has method assumes a longer persistence of suitable habitat specifically for the been no reproduction observed, and it is individuals for purposes of estimating Louisiana pinesnake in areas occupied unknown if a viable population is occupied habitat. Several individual by the snake. feasible. snakes (among several populations) (8) Comment: One peer reviewer and Our Response: We agree that it is too have been captured 4 to 5 years apart several public commenters questioned soon to conclude whether the with no intervening captures in the our conclusion that illegal collection experimental reintroduction is same general area, indicating that from the wild and killing by humans successful, which is why we did not snakes can persist for at least several were not threats to the Louisiana make any claims in the proposed rule of years in areas without being captured pinesnake. reproduction or viability for the (Pierce 2016, unpublished data; Our Response: In the proposed rule, reintroduced population. However, a Battaglia 2016, pers. comm.). we relied upon the best scientific and basic definition of the term Neither method should be construed commercial information available, ‘‘population’’ is a group of individuals to represent the absolute extent of which in the case of illegal collection of the same species that occur together Louisiana pinesnake occupied habitat at included correspondence with in the same area. Our use of the term a specific point in time. Both attempt to individuals who have experience with ‘‘population’’ for the Reintroduction predict the spatial extent of mobile the history of the pinesnake pet trade in Feasibility Study animals was to animals over time based on data points the area (see ‘‘Factor B: Overutilization indicate that it was a group of that are nearly all tied to mostly for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, individuals of the same species located permanent trap locations. However, or Educational Purposes’’ in the in one geographical area, not to relay both methods are based on factual Summary of Factors Affecting the that we considered pinesnakes in this evidence of the species’ presence, and Species section, below). Those sources area to be reproducing or self- have value. The aerial extent of the maintained that the demand for sustaining. EOHAs alone cannot be used to estimate Louisiana pinesnake is limited. There (11) Comment: One peer reviewer the species’ abundance, and therefore was no information available to suggest suggested that the EOHAs overestimate are only one part of the analysis used in that illegal collection will increase once the extent of occupied habitat, because the decision to list the Louisiana the species is listed, and no new not all of the habitat within EOHAs is pinesnake as threatened. The Service information to support this theory was suitable, and not all suitable habitat is method for determining occupied received during the comment periods. occupied. The reviewer also stated that habitat does not rely on soil or habitat Since the Louisana pinesnake is occupied area has declined over time. type or any variable other than fossorial (and thus difficult to locate), The reviewer also stated that the Service occurrence records of the species. The

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 14961

Service acknowledges the peer populations (Bienville, Fort Polk/ explained in the proposed rule and reviewer’s comment that not all of the Vernon, and Peason); therefore, the supported by research cited therein. EOHAs comprise suitable habitat, and species should be listed as endangered Recent (2011–2016) captures of not all suitable habitat is likely to be rather than threatened. subadults in the Bienville EOHA occupied. The Service does not imply Our Response: The Louisiana indicates that conditions there support that this situation must be either true or pinesnake has declined in both numbers some level of reproduction and necessary in order to describe the and range. All populations in Texas persistence. However, we agree that the EOHAs. continue to show a decline even after long-term persistence of the Louisiana (12) Comment: One peer reviewer additional trapping efforts extended the pinesnake is in danger; therefore, we are claimed that neither predation nor number and range of potential detection listing the Louisiana pinesnake as a disease is a significant factor in the points. Acknowledging the unfavorable threatened species. population decline of the Louisiana outlook for Texas populations, some (15) Comment: One peer reviewer pinesnake as stated in the proposed general limitations of trapping to stated that most forest conservation rule. That reviewer also stated that determine the species’ presence should work that is beneficial to the Louisiana disease is a concern in the captive be noted. The number of trapped snakes pinesnake is work that is already being population. is almost certainly an underestimate of conducted for the benefit of the red- Our Response: The Service stated in individuals, and while it is likely that cockaded woodpecker and requested the proposed rule that disease was not the number of individual snakes that this be emphasized in the rule. a threat, but that predation acting captured is partly a function of trap Our Response: Because their basic together with other known sources of density, that relationship remains habitat requirements are very similar, mortality, coupled with the current unknown. Additionally, some conservation efforts for the red- reduced size of the remaining Louisiana individuals caught in one trapping cockaded woodpecker also benefit the pinesnake populations, constitutes a season in a relatively small area of Louisiana pinesnake. We noted these threat (see Factor C: Disease or suitable habitat were not captured again contributions in the proposed rule and Predation). Based on numerous for up to 5 years (Pierce 2016, unpub have added text in the final rule to accounts of predation on other related data; Battaglia 2016, pers. comm.). underscore their importance. pinesnake species (and one attempted Finally, it should be noted that not all (16) Comment: One peer reviewer predation on a Louisiana pinesnake), we suitable habitat has been trapped. asked that the Service clarify the believe that the Louisiana pinesnake While we not aware of any viability meaning of ‘‘invasive species’’ as used experiences natural predation, and that analyses based on demographic and life- in the list of activities that may result in as long as the populations are low in history data, the peer reviewer has a violation of section 9 of the ESA. abundance, this activity does constitute conducted research using state-space Our Response: Executive Order 13112 a threat. The Service did not find that modelling based on trap success data to defines ‘‘invasive species’’ in section 1, disease in the captive population was a predict the timing of ‘‘quasi-extinction’’ paragraph (f), as ‘‘an alien species threat to the Louisiana pinesnake. for populations of the Louisiana whose introduction does or is likely to Nearly all captive-animal propagation pinesnake. The Service does not use a cause economic or environmental harm efforts are at risk of disease. Premature comparable statistical analysis tool that or harm to human health.’’ Take to the death due to disease has affected the determines extinction or ‘‘quasi- Louisiana pinesnake may occur in the captive population, but the mortality extinction.’’ The Bienville and Fort Polk form of harm as a result of habitat history of the captive population of populations have a long history of degradation caused by invasive plant Louisiana pinesnakes is consistent with regular captures, and trap success in the species. that of any healthy captive population last 2 years (2015, 2016) at the (17) Comment: One peer reviewer of snakes maintained for several Sandylands core management area questioned whether only wild snakes, as decades (Reichling 2018, pers. comm.). (CMA) was greater than any other year opposed to both wild and captive-bred With a captive population of just since trapping started in 2004. While individuals, should be subject to some under 200 animals, even a small number long-term persistence of these or all of the prohibitions found in of deaths are potentially detrimental to populations is in question, and there is section 9 of the Act. the effort to maintain a secure captive no evidence to show an increase of Our Response: We intend that the population and provide animals for individuals, a decline of the Louisiana prohibitions of section 9 of the Act recruitment into the wild. However, populations cannot be concluded from apply to both wild-caught and captive- because great losses due to disease have trapping data. bred Louisiana pinesnakes. While not occurred in the Louisiana pinesnake (14) Comment: One peer reviewer intrastate commerce, including that of captive population and the member stated that the effectiveness of threatened species, is not regulated by zoos have not reported a heightened conservation efforts for the Louisiana Federal law, interstate commerce of concern about disease, we do not pinesnake cannot be demonstrated. both threatened and endangered species consider disease outbreak in the Our Response: As we acknowledged is generally prohibited except by special captive-bred population to be a threat at in the proposed rule, beneficial forest permit. The permitting process would this time. management has not resulted in an allow the Service to better monitor all (13) Comment: One peer reviewer increase in abundance of the Louisiana individuals of the species, validate stated that all populations of Louisiana pinesnake even though many acres of claims of captive-bred status, and pinesnake continue to decline in land have been included in inform the decision to approve or abundance and the overall range of the conservation efforts. However, by disapprove actions that could species has contracted. Another peer increasing the amount of suitable potentially affect the wild population. reviewer stated that Louisiana habitat by appropriate forest pinesnake trap success in three Texas management, the threat of habitat loss Federal Agency Comments populations during the 5 years and fragmentation has been reduced in (18) Comment: One Federal agency preceding the last captures in those many areas. The connection between commented that the captive-breeding populations is similar to what is suitable habitat, pocket gophers, and the program and reintroduction efforts are happening with three Louisiana Louisiana pinesnake is thoroughly promising but it is premature to call

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 14962 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

them a success. That agency and some listing of the species, the conference knowledge there is no certification that other commenters also recommended opinion must be confirmed as formal specifies what forest condition would that any wild-caught snakes should be consultation by adopting it as a need to be achieved in order to benefit introduced into the captive-breeding biological opinion. The Service did not the Louisiana pinesnake specifically. population. designate critical habitat in this final Public Comments Our Response: As discussed in a rule, but will make a decision in the Response to Comment above, the near future to propose critical habitat if (21) Comment: Several commenters captive-breeding program and prudent and determinable, and if representing the forestry industry stated reintroduction efforts are promising, appropriate will evaluate whether lands that the Service mistakenly thinks that and in the proposed rule we did claim in Fort Polk should be considered for pine plantations are static ‘‘closed that the reintroduction program had designation (see Critical Habitat canopies’’ and have ‘‘thick mid-stories.’’ shown partial success. Although there section). They stated that pine plantations can has been no evidence of reproduction, provide suitable Louisiana pinesnake almost 60 percent of the total 77 snakes Comments From States habitat, and across a broad, actively released were recaptured in 2016 (3 We received comments from the managed forest landscape, pine years later), which shows that captive- Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, plantations that are at different stages of bred individuals can survive without the Texas Parks and Wildlife development ensure that suitable assistance for several years. Department, Texas A&M Forest Service, habitat is available at all times. Some Although two of the Service’s and the Louisiana Department of commenters referred to a 2013 National partners, AZA and USFS are currently Wildlife and Fisheries. The Texas Council for Air and Stream carrying out a captive-breeding and Comptroller of Public Accounts and Improvement report, which states that reintroduction effort, captive- Texas A&M Forest Service stated that of the almost 9 million acres of planted propagation programs are generally a they believe the Louisiana pinesnake is pine forests owned by large corporate last recourse for conserving species. The likely extirpated in Texas. All three forest landowners, two-thirds of those Act directs the Service to focus on Texas State agencies stated their support acres were in some form of open- conserving the species in the wild. Loss for longleaf pine (Pinus palustris) canopied condition. The commenters of habitat is one of the primary threats restoration efforts, and also management suggested that suitable Louisiana to this species. Before captive animals of other pine species to benefit the pinesnake habitat should include this are taken from the wild or can be Louisiana pinesnake. The Texas Parks type of matrix of forested stands where reintroduced, questions of genetics, and Wildlife Department provided an the canopy cover is at various stages of disease, and survival in the wild must extensive list of what it represented being open and closed, as the be evaluated and addressed. Captive were normal practices that would be pinesnakes would always be able to find populations, even when they are necessary for forest management and areas where they could locate food, healthy and genetically diverse, will that should not be restricted if the shelter, and mates. likely not survive in the wild unless species was listed. Specific comments Our Response: We sincerely there is adequate habitat. However, as are addressed below. appreciate the efforts of forest we begin the recovery process, we will (20) Comment: While all three Texas landowners to provide habitat for a consider various options for recovery of State agencies and several other variety of species and would like to the species, which will likely continue commenters stated their support for continue working with the forest to include captive propagation. longleaf pine restoration, they also industry to further explore the benefits (19) Comment: The Army apprised commented that ongoing conservation of pine plantations. That said, not all the Service of new research on pocket efforts with other pine species, best forests are managed in a way that will gophers done at Fort Polk. The Army management practices, and good protect the species or its habitat. In the agreed with the Service’s recommended stewardship or healthy forest survey cited by the commenter, two- habitat management for the Louisiana certifications were also beneficial for the thirds of those acres were composed of pinesnake at Fort Polk. It also Louisiana pinesnake. young trees that had not grown large commented that Fort Polk should be Our Response: The structure of the enough to close the canopy, as many exempt from take for activities related to forest occupied by Louisiana pinesnakes managed pine forest lands go through red-cockaded woodpecker and is very important, and while some cycles of having closed canopies. For Louisiana pinesnake conservation and studies have shown that pinesnakes example, if a stand becomes closed be exempted from critical habitat have not always been found to use when the trees are 5 to 7 years old, and designation. longleaf pine forests exclusively, studies the first thinning is at age 14 to 20, there Our Response: The Service has support the need for open-canopied is a period of 7 to 15 years when that reviewed the research provided and pine forest with a sparse midstory and stand is unsuitable for pinesnakes. incorporated this new information in well-developed herbaceous ground The idea that a matrix of the Habitat section of the preamble to cover composed of grasses and forbs. intermittently open- and closed- this rule. In a conference opinion, the While other tree species could canopied forest stands provides suitable Service conferred with the Army on potentially be managed for an open habitat for Louisiana pinesnakes relies habitat management activities and canopy, the canopy structure of longleaf on several assumptions: That suitable military training that takes place on pine allows greater light penetration open habitat will always be located in Army-controlled land at Fort Polk and than other pine species for trees of close proximity to areas where the concluded that those actions analyzed comparable size. So for the same stem canopy is closing, that areas of suitable in that conference opinion were not density, longleaf pine will generally habitat will be expansive enough to likely to jeopardize the continued allow more sunlight to reach the forest support the large home ranges of these existence of the Louisiana pinesnake. floor, which increases herbaceous snakes, and that snakes which must That opinion does not apply to the red- vegetation cover. That said, while relocate due to canopy closure will be cockaded woodpecker, but only to the certification for well-managed forests or able to find adequate access to relocated Louisiana pinesnake and the specific timber farms is likely an indication of mates and prey in their shifted home actions covered in the opinion. With the good habitat for some wildlife, to our range. Small mammal abundance

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 14963

decreases in response to canopy closure, in forestry, especially from the private actions incorporating good land- often to the point of mammals sector. stewardship, and we want to continue abandoning the site (Lane et al. 2013, p. Our Response: In accordance with our to encourage land management practices 231; Hansberry et al. 2013, p. 57). Also, peer review policy published on July 1, that support the species. the primary prey of the Louisiana 1994 (59 FR 34270), we selected We recognize the need to work pinesnake, Baird’s pocket gopher qualified peer-reviewers based on their collaboratively with private landowners (Geomys breviceps), forages on particular expertise or experience to conserve and recover the Louisiana herbaceous vegetation, which requires relevant to the scientific questions and pinesnake.. We encourage any sufficient sunlight penetration for determinations addressed in our action. landowners with a listed species that growth. When the forest canopy of a We solicited peer review from six may be present on their properties, and stand becomes more closed, herbaceous knowledgeable individuals with who think they may conduct activities vegetation is reduced or lost entirely. expertise pertaining to pinesnakes, their that negatively impact that species, to Therefore, stands with closed canopies, habitat, and threats, including one work with the Service. We assist although open for a part of the time reviewer with extensive experience with landowners to determine whether during the cycle of management and forestry management, especially as actions they may result in take of a harvesting activities, are not stable applied to conservation actions to listed species and, if so, whether a habitats for pinesnakes and do not benefit habitat for the red-cockaded habitat conservation plan or safe harbor contribute to the long-term conservation woodpecker, an endangered species agreement may be appropriate for their of the species. with habitat requirements similar to the needs. These plans or agreements (22) Comment: Many commenters Louisiana pinesnake. provide for the conservation of the stated that the structure of the forest is (24) Comment: Several commenters listed species while providing coverage more important to Louisiana pinesnake indicated that concerns about liability for incidental take of the species during than the presence of longleaf pine per limit landowners’ ability to conduct the course of otherwise lawful activities. se. They note that Louisiana pinesnakes prescribed fire, which benefits the Other voluntary programs, such as the have been found in other habitats, such Louisiana pinesnake. Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife Our Response: We acknowledge and as monoculture pine plantations program and the Natural Resources commend landowners for their land containing little if any longleaf pine. Conservation Service’s Farm Bill Our Response: The best available stewardship and want to continue to programs offer opportunities for private information shows that structure of the encourage those management practices landowners to enroll their lands and forest occupied by Louisiana pinesnakes that support the Louisiana pinesnake. receive cost-sharing and planning is very important, and while some We understand the liability concerns assistance to reach their management studies have shown that pinesnakes associated with implementing goals. The recovery of endangered and have not always been found exclusively prescribed fire, but note that, while threatened species to the point that they using longleaf pine forests, these studies prescribed fire is an effective and are no longer in danger of extinction support the need for open-canopied preferred forest management tool, pine forest with a sparse midstory and private landowners will not be required now or in the future is the ultimate well-developed ground cover composed to perform prescribed burning on their objective of the Act, and the Service of grasses and forbs. While other tree property as a result of the listing of the recognizes the vital importance of species could potentially be managed Louisiana pinesnake. Landowners who voluntary, nonregulatory conservation for an open canopy, the canopy wish to pursue this activity may be able measures that provide incentives for structure of longleaf pine is such that it to purchase liability insurance landowners in achieving that objective. allows greater light penetration than specifically for conducting prescribed We are committed to working with other pine species for trees of burns. Additionally, voluntary landowners to conserve this species and comparable size. So for the same stem conservation programs such as the develop workable solutions. density, longleaf pine will generally Service’s Partners for Fish and Wildlife (26) Comment: One commenter stated allow more sunlight to reach the forest Program and various programs that the Service arbitrarily chose open- floor, which increases herbaceous administered by the Natural Resources canopy longleaf forest as the ‘‘historic’’ vegetation cover. In the proposed rule, Conservation Service may provide habitat condition for the Louisiana we described the types of forest and financial assistance to eligible pinesnake. They also commented that habitat where Louisiana pinesnakes landowners who implement the habitat has been altered by humans have been found historically. For the management activities that benefit the (especially fire) since the arrival of the vast majority of records occur in habitat for a listed species, including the first Americans. forested locations dominated by longleaf Louisiana pinesnake. Our Response: The use of the term pine. When Louisiana pinesnakes are (25) Comment: Several commenters ‘‘historical’’ is not meant to suggest that found in pine plantations devoid of indicated that listing the Louisiana the longleaf ecosystem was free of longleaf pine, these areas are adjacent to pinesnake may lead to changes in forest human (Native American) influence areas with longleaf pine and areas of management that would negatively (i.e., in a pristine state), but rather it open canopy with herbaceous impact the species. refers to the ecosystem that occurred vegetation. As noted in the proposed Our Response: In compliance with the prior to European settlement and rule, the individuals found in the requirements of the Act and its modern silviculture, and the ecosystem plantation area appeared to be less implementing regulations, we within which the Louisiana pinesnake healthy than those found in the determined that the Louisiana evolved. It is for these reasons that the beneficially managed areas indicating pinesnake warrants listing based on our longleaf pine ecosystem is considered that they may have only been traversing assessment of the best available the Louisiana pinesnake’s historical the plantation in search of higher scientific and commercial data. We habitat. See our discussion of longleaf quality habitat (Reichling et al. 2008). recognize that the Louisiana pinesnake pine habitat under Factor A: The (23) Comment: Several commenters remains primarily on lands where Present or Threatened Destruction, stated that the Service should have habitat management has supported Modification, or Curtailment of Its requested peer reviewers with expertise survival, due in large part to voluntary Habitat or Range in the proposed rule.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 14964 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

(27) Comment: Two commenters important for the Louisiana pinesnake’s because the proposed rule relies on suggested that conservation efforts are primary prey, the Baird’s pocket gopher, some of their research. already helping the species and that the (Rudolph et al 2012, p. 243). Pocket Our Response: The Act and our Service should use public-private gopher abundance is associated with a regulations require us to use the ‘‘best partnerships and alternative low density of trees, an open canopy, scientific data available’’ in a listing conservation tools (e.g., Candidate and a sparse woody midstory, which decision. Further, in making our listing Conservation Agreement with allow greater sunlight and more decisions, we use information from Assurances) to recover the Louisiana herbaceous vegetation needed as forage many different sources, including pinesnake instead of Federal for pocket gophers (Himes 1998, p. 43; articles in peer-reviewed journals, Endangered Species Act listing. Melder and Cooper 2015, p. 75). scientific status surveys and studies Our Response: Conservation of the The best available scientific completed by qualified individuals, Louisiana pinesnake will require information indicates that the structure other unpublished governmental and collaboration between Federal, State, of the open-canopy pine forest occupied nongovernmental reports, reports and local agencies and landowners. We by pinesnakes is important, despite prepared by industry, personal recognize that the Louisiana pinesnake some pinesnakes having found outside communication about management or remains primarily on lands where of longleaf pine forests. These studies other relevant topics, management plans habitat management has supported also support the need for open-canopy developed by Federal agencies or the survival, due in large part to voluntary pine forest with a well-developed States, biological assessments, other actions incorporating good land- herbaceous ground cover. The species unpublished materials, experts’ stewardship, and we want to continue has been collected in fields devoid of opinions or personal knowledge, and to encourage land management practices trees and trapped in areas with newly other sources, including expert opinions that support the species. However, our planted trees, suggesting that very open of subject biologists. determination to list the species is canopy conditions are preferred. The In accordance with our peer review required by the Act and its vast majority of records for the species policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR implementing regulations, considering come from pine forests, with only a few 34270), we solicited peer review from the five listing factors, and using the records from non-forested fields. The knowledgeable individuals with best available scientific and commercial best scientific information available scientific expertise that included information. Our analysis supports our indicates that the Louisiana pinesnake familiarity with this species and other determination of threatened status for can use some treeless areas, but there is pinesnakes, the geographic region in this species. Ongoing conservation no evidence that those areas are which the species occurs, and actions, including those referenced by preferred over, or good substitutes for, conservation biology principles. the commenters, and the manner in open-canopy pine forest habitat as (31) Comment: Several commenters which they are helping to ameliorate described in the rule. indicated the Service should consider threats to the species were considered in (29) Comment: Commenters stated the economic costs to the public when our final listing determination for the that the Service’s data and information making a determination to Federally list Louisiana pinesnake (see ‘‘Conservation were not sufficient to proceed with a a species. Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction, listing of the Louisiana pinesnake. Our Response: Section 4(a)(1) of the Modification, or Curtailment of Its Commenters noted the lack of critical Act specifies that the determination of Range’’ under Factor A and information needed to assess the whether any species is an endangered ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce Threats species’ status and population trends, species or a threatened species is based under Factor E’’ under Factor E). Habitat such as demographic data, rangewide solely on the five factors A through E loss, degradation, and fragmentation has surveys, and population estimates. (see Executive Summary, basis of been a primary driver of the Louisiana Several others contended that findings) none of which include pinesnake’s decline. These ongoing population estimates are inaccurate and economics. Therefore, the Service is conservation efforts were not sufficient likely too low because Louisiana precluded from considering such to ameliorate the threats to the species pinesnakes are difficult to locate, noting potential costs in association with a such that listing was not warranted, and their tendency to remain below ground listing determination. additional conservation efforts will be most of the time, and that trapping (32) Comment: Several commenters needed to recover the species to the efforts are limited in scope across the indicated there should be economic point that the protections of the Act are animal’s range. incentives or private landowners should no longer needed. Our Response: It is often the case that be compensated if land use is restricted (28) Comment: Some commenters data are limited for rare species, and we on their property due to listing of a stated that there is no evidence that the acknowledge that it would be useful to threatened or endangered species. Louisiana pinesnake needs any forest have more information on the Louisiana Our Response: There is no provision overstory at all. pinesnake. However, as required by in the Act to compensate landowners if Our Response: As discussed in the section 4 of the Act, we are required to they have a federally listed species on Habitat section of this rule, the best base our determination on the best their property. However, the available scientific information available scientific and commercial landowners’ only obligation is not to indicates that Louisiana pinesnake information at the time of our ‘‘take’’ the species. We encourage any habitat generally consists of sandy, well- rulemaking. No new or alternative data landowners that may have a listed drained soils in open-canopy pine were offered by any commenters that species on their properties, and who forest, which may include species such resulted in a change to our think they may conduct activities that as longleaf, shortleaf, slash, or loblolly determination that the Louisiana negatively impact that species, to work pines with a sparse midstory, and well- pinesnake should be listed as threatened with the Service. The Service’s Partners developed herbaceous ground cover under the Act. for Fish and Wildlife Program and dominated by grasses and forbs (Young (30) Comment: Several commenters various programs administered by the and Vandeventer 1988, p. 204; Rudolph stated that the peer review of the Natural Resources Conservation Service and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117). Abundant proposed rule is flawed because the may provide financial assistance to ground-layer herbaceous vegetation is reviewers are not really independent eligible landowners who implement

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 14965

management activities that benefit the to contribute to Louisiana pinesnake not predict their abundance in other habitat for a listed species, including the conservation, work of researchers, and localized areas, including those known Louisiana pinesnake. Private zoological institutions. Some questioned to be occupied by the Louisiana landowners may contact their local the need for Federal protection, citing pinesnake. Service field office to obtain information the existing State regulations in Texas (36) Comment: Several commenters about these programs and permits. and Louisiana. Some specifically indicated the species is already (33) Comment: Some commenters requested that captive-bred animals be protected by State laws, and as such stated that the Service rushed to list the excluded from the listing or exempted should not be listed under the Act (or Louisiana pinesnake because of a through a rule under section 4(d) of the that listing under the Act should not be lawsuit settlement. Act to allow unfettered continuation of necessary). Our Response: The status of the captive breeding, pet ownership, and Our Response: Section 4(b)(1)(A) of Louisiana pinesnake has been under trade. the Act requires us, in making a listing consideration by the Service for almost Our Response: Louisiana pinesnakes determination, to take into account two decades. The Louisiana pinesnake acquired before the effective date of the those efforts being made by States or was added to the candidate list of final listing of this species (see DATES, foreign nations, or any political species in 1999, during which time the above) may be legally held and bred in subdivision thereof, to protect the scientific literature and data indicated captivity as long as laws regarding this species. As part of our analysis, we that the species was detrimentally activity within the State in which they consider relevant Federal, State, and impacted by ongoing threats. At that are held are not violated. This would tribal laws and regulations. Regulatory time, we determined that the Louisiana include snakes acquired prior to the mechanisms may negate the need for pinesnake warranted listing under the effective date of this listing by pet listing if we determine such Act, but listing was precluded by the owners, researchers, and zoological mechanisms address the threats to the necessity to commit limited funds and institutions. Future sale or other use of species such that listing is not, or no staff to complete higher priority listing captive-bred Louisiana pinesnakes, born longer, warranted. However, for the actions. We continued to find that from pre-listing acquired parents, Louisiana pinesnake, the best available listing was warranted but precluded within the State of their origin would be information supports our determination through subsequent annual Candidate regulated by applicable laws of that that State regulations are not adequate Notices of Review. On July 12, 2011, the State. If individuals outside a snake’s to remove the threats to the point that Service filed a multiyear workplan as State of origin wish to purchase captive- listing is not warranted. Existing State part of a settlement agreement with the bred snakes, they would have to first regulations, while providing some Center for Biological Diversity and acquire a section 10(a)(1)(A) Interstate protection for individual snakes, do not others, in a consolidated case in the U.S. Commerce permit from the Service provide any protection for their habitat District Court for the District of (website: http://www.fws.gov/forms/3- (see Factors Affecting the Species, Columbia. A settlement agreement 200-55.pdf). Factor D discussion). Loss, degradation, (Endangered Species Act Section 4 (35) Comment: Several commenters and fragmentation of habitat has been a Deadline Litigation, No. 10–377 (EGS), stated that the Louisiana pinesnake is primary driver of the species’ decline. MDL Docket No. 2165 (D.D.C. May 10, closely associated with Baird’s pocket The Act provides protections for listed 2011)) was approved by the court on gopher, which serves it as prey and a species and their habitats both through September 9, 2011. The settlement provider of shelter via its underground sections 7 and 10 of the Act, and the enabled the Service to systematically, burrows. They contend that because the designation of critical habitat. In over a period of 6 years, review and gopher is abundant and not declining, addition, listing provides resources address the needs of more than 250 the Louisiana pinesnake is not at risk. under Federal programs to facilitate candidate species, including the Other commenters also suggested that restoration of habitat, and helps bring Louisiana pinesnake, to determine if not enough is known about the pocket public awareness to the plight of the they should be added to the Federal gopher population to know how it might species. Lists of Endangered and Threatened affect the Louisiana pinesnake. (37) Comment: Several commenters Wildlife and Plants. Our review of the Our Response: The Baird’s pocket indicated that activities that may violate Louisiana pinesnake was one of the last gopher is likely abundant and has a section 9 of the ESA are too broadly species addressed under this settlement relatively large range (greater than the written and may encompass forest agreement. Section 4 of the Act and its Louisiana pinesnake); however, the management activities that would not implementing regulations (50 CFR part Louisiana pinesnake is currently known meet the regulatory definition of ‘‘harm’’ 424) set forth the procedures for adding from only six relatively small isolated because they would not significantly species to the Federal Lists of areas, a small subset of the overall impair essential behaviors. For harm to Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Baird’s pocket gopher range. Within occur it must be proven that there is or and Plants. Notwithstanding the those areas, the amount of suitable will be death or actual injury to an settlement agreement and its habitat for pocket gophers and identifiable member of the species that requirements, we also adhered to the Louisiana pinesnakes is limited even is proximately caused by the action in requirements of the Act and its further. The abundance of the pocket question. implementing regulations to determine gopher is only important to the Our Response: The term ‘‘take’’ is whether the Louisiana pinesnake Louisiana pinesnake in those local areas defined by the ESA to mean to harass, warrants listing, based on our where the pocket gopher is available as harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, assessment of the five-factor threats prey and where its burrows provide trap, capture, or collect or attempt to analysis using the best available refugia. Like other animals, pocket engage in any such conduct. ‘‘Harass’’ is scientific and commercial data. gopher populations can become locally further defined by the Service to mean (34) Comment: Commenters scarce due to local adverse habitat an intentional or negligent act or representing the captive-breeding conditions while simultaneously omission that creates the likelihood of community voiced concern over the remaining abundant on a rangewide injury to wildlife by annoying it to such impact of the listing to pet owners, scale. Therefore, the rangewide an extent as to significantly disrupt many of whom indicated a willingness abundance of the pocket gopher does normal behavior patterns which

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 14966 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

include, but are not limited to, breeding, site. So far, there have been no other information from States, or other feeding, or sheltering. ‘‘Harm’’ is further attempts to augment existing unpublished resources), we will post defined by the Service to mean an act populations of Louisiana pinesnakes those documents on Regulations.gov. which actually kills or injures wildlife, with captive-bred individuals. The Documents that can already be accessed and such acts may include significant Service is committed to working with online by the public, either through habitat modification or degradation that the appropriate Federal, State, and local purchase or for free, do not need to be results in death or injury to listed partners, as well as private entities, to uploaded onto http:// species by significantly impairing identify additional, appropriate www.regulations.gov. Any such essential behavioral patterns including reintroduction sites, and ensure that if information, documents, data, grey breeding, feeding, or sheltering. such reintroductions occur, they are literature, or other information that we The Service understands the concern only conducted on lands with willing cite in our rulemaking will be posted of forest owners and managers regarding landowners and adjacent landowners and made available at the time of forest management activities that may are notified. publication of the rule. In addition, as potentially violate section 9 of the ESA. (39) Comment: Several commenters noted above, comments and materials However, the Service did specify that stated that they thought critical habitat, we received, as well as supporting ‘‘unauthorized destruction or if necessary, should be designated on documentation we used in preparing modification of suitable occupied public land only. this rule, will be available by Louisiana pinesnake habitat’’ may Our Response: Critical habitat has appointment, during normal business potentially result in a violation. That been determined to be prudent but not hours at: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, statement may appear broad, but it determinable at this time. See Critical Louisiana Ecological Services Office, covers activities in addition to forest Habitat, below. 646 Cajundome Boulevard, Suite 400. management, such as conversion of (40) Comment: Two commenters suitable forest habitat to agriculture or stated that there is debate among the Summary of Changes From the other land use. If forest management scientific community concerning the Proposed Rule activities would neither result in a validity of the taxonomic classification This final rule incorporates minor significant disruption of normal of the Louisiana pinesnake as a distinct changes to our proposed rule based on behavior patterns (i.e., harass) nor species. the comments we received, as discussed impair essential behavior patterns (i.e., Our Response: We concluded that the above in the Summary of Comments and harm), then those activities would not species is a valid taxon (See Species Recommendations, and newly available violate section 9 of the ESA. The Service Description and Taxonomy section in survey information. Many small, is committed to working with the proposed rule) based in part on nonsubstantive changes and corrections landowners and land managers to help Reichling (1995) and Rodriguez-Robles were made throughout the document in them determine whether any forest and Jesus-Escobar (2000) which response to comments (e.g., updating management activities would concluded the same. The classification the Background section, threats, and potentially rise to the level of ‘‘harass’’ of the Louisiana pinesnake with the minor clarifications). However, the or ‘‘harm’’ of the Louisiana pinesnake in species name Pituophis ruthveni is information we received in response to occupied habitat and, if so, whether a recognized by Crother (2000) and the proposed rule did not change our habitat conservation plan or safe harbor accepted by the Society for the Study of determination that the Louisiana agreement may be appropriate for their Amphibians and Reptiles, the American pinesnake is a threatened species. needs. Society of Ichthyologists and Below is a summary of substantive (38) Comment: Several commenters Herpetologists, and the Herpetologists changes made to the final rule: stated that reintroduction should be League. That classification, while • Additional information on habitat done on public lands only, and private recognized as not unequivocally from recent studies (Wagner et al., 2016) landowners in the immediate area supported by the available data by the was added to include forb species as should be notified. ICUN, is also adopted by the ICUN’s part of the preferred ground-layer Our Response: Reintroduction, with own database. Some researchers (e.g., herbaceous vegetation. In addition, we improved success, done in multiple Ernst and Ernst [2003]) may treat added that snakes appeared to select populations where appropriate habitat ruthveni as a subspecies of Pituophis areas based on the diameter at breast is available, has the potential to catenifer, but it should be noted that high (dbh) (>25 cm dbh) trees, rather eventually increase the number of subspecies can also be listed under the than the number of trees per plot. individuals and populations, increase Act and afforded the same protections • Updated occurrence records and genetic heterozygosity, and alleviate as a full species. individuals of Louisiana pinesnakes presumed inbreeding depression in the (41) Comment: One commenter stated from the USFS to include a total 291 populations, making them more that the Service had not provided verified occurrence records of 251 resistant to threats described under relevant data about the Louisiana individual Louisiana pinesnakes from Factor E. An informal committee was pinesnake to the public for review. 1927 through November 1, 2017 established to oversee and conduct an Our Response: Consistent with a 2016 (excluding reintroductions), all from experimental reintroduction of the Director’s Memorandum, ‘‘Information Louisiana and Texas. In addition, Louisiana pinesnake on public land in Disclosure Policy for ESA Louisiana pinesnake trapping across the an attempt to demonstrate the feasibility Rulemakings,’’ we post all cited species’ entire range from 1992 through of reintroducing a population using literature that is used in rulemaking November 1, 2017, has resulted in 113 individuals from a captive population, decisions under the Act, and that is not unique individual captures during and establishment of a viable already publicly available, on 451,501 trap days (1:4,220 trap success) population in restored habitat. As Regulations.gov concurrent with the (Pierce 2017, pers. comm.; Pierce 2016a, discussed under Population Estimates Federal Register publication. Where pers. comm.) and Status, the resulting efforts to cited references or literature used in the • Updated information related to reintroduce Louisiana pinesnakes have rulemaking process are not published trapping efforts to include data from been conducted only at the Kisatchie and readily available to the public, 1992–2017 throughout the historical National Forest (KNF) Catahoula District (such as with grey literature, range of the Louisiana pinesnake, which

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 14967

has resulted in 116 unique (i.e., new or length of typical adult Louisiana Burgdorf 1997, p. 117; Rudolph et al. first capture) individual captures. pinesnakes ranges from 48 to 56 inches 1998, p. 147; Ealy et al. 2004, p. 386; • Updated trap success rate at (in) (122 to 142 centimeters (cm)) Rudolph et al. 2007 p. 561; Pierce et al. Bienville EOHA, which is 61,091 ac (Conant and Collins 1991, p. 203). 2014, p. 140). Most Louisiana pinesnake (24,722.6 ha), with a trap success rate of relocations have been underground in Habitat 1:1,133.1 (Pierce 2017, pers. comm.; pocket gopher burrow systems (Ealy et Pierce 2016a, pers. comm.). Louisiana pinesnakes are known from al. 2004, p. 389; Himes et al. 2006, p. • Updated the number of trap days and associated with a disjunct portion 107). In Louisiana, habitat selection by and survey years on the Kisatchie of the historical longleaf-dominated Louisiana pinesnakes seems to be District of the KNF to read that no pine ecosystem that existed in west- determined by the abundance and Louisiana pinesnakes were captured central Louisiana and east Texas distribution of pocket gophers and their during 13,372 trap days (1995 to 2003). (Reichling 1995, p. 186). Longleaf pine burrow systems (Rudolph and Burgdorf • Revised captive-breeding release forests are dominated by longleaf, but 1997, p. 117). Active Louisiana information to include 91 captive-bred may also contain other overstory species pinesnakes occasionally use debris, Louisiana pinesnakes released into the such as loblolly and shortleaf pine and logs, and low vegetation as temporary wild at the Catahoula Ranger District of sparse hardwoods. They have a species- surface shelters (Rudolph and Burgdorf the KNF (Pierce 2017, pers. comm.) rich herpetofaunal community and 1997, p. 117; Himes 1998, p. 26; Ealy et • Updated detection information harbor many species that are specialists al. 2004, p. 386); however, most released snakes through monitoring of of the longleaf pine habitat (Guyer and Louisiana pinesnakes disturbed on the deployed Automated PIT Tag Recorders Bailey 1993, p. 142). Louisiana surface retreat to nearby burrows and trapping. pinesnake habitat generally consists of (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117). • Updated Factor C disease sandy, well-drained soils in open- Louisiana pinesnakes also minimally discussion paragraph to include new canopy pine forest, which may include use decayed or burned stumps, or nine- disease information. species such as longleaf, shortleaf, slash, banded armadillo (Dasypus or loblolly pines with a sparse midstory, Background novemcinctus) burrows as underground and well-developed herbaceous ground refugia (Ealy et al. 2004, p. 389). Please refer to the proposed listing cover dominated by grasses and forbs Baird’s pocket gophers appear to rule for the Louisiana pinesnake (81 FR (Young and Vandeventer 1988, p. 204; prefer well-drained, sandy soils with 69454, October 16, 2016) for a full Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117). low clay content in the topsoil (Davis et summary of species information. We The vast majority of natural longleaf al. 1938, p. 414). Whether by choice for also present new information published pine habitat has been lost or degraded burrowing efficiency or in pursuit of or obtained since the proposed rule was due to conversion to extensive pine Baird’s pocket gophers (or likely both), published (see also Summary of plantations and suppression of the Louisiana pinesnakes also occur most Changes from the Proposed Rule, historical fire regime. As a result, often in sandy soils (Wagner et al. 2014, above). current Louisiana pinesnake habitat p. 152). In addition to suitable forest Species Description and Taxonomy occurs within smaller, isolated patches structure and herbaceous vegetation, of longleaf forest and other open forest specific soil characteristics are an Pinesnakes (genus Pituophis) are with well-developed herbaceous ground important determinant of Louisiana large, short-tailed, non-venomous, cover. pinesnake inhabitance (Wagner et al. powerful constricting snakes with Abundant ground-layer herbaceous 2014, entire). The snakes prefer soils keeled scales and disproportionately vegetation, especially forb species, with high sand content and a low water small heads (Conant and Collins 1991, (Wagner et al. 2016, p. 11) is important table (Wagner et al. 2014, p. 152). pp. 201–202). Their snouts are pointed, for the Louisiana pinesnake’s primary In one study, Louisiana pinesnakes and they have a large scale on the tip prey, the Baird’s pocket gopher which were found most frequently in pine of their snout presumably contributing constitutes 75 percent of the Louisiana forests (56 percent), followed by pine to the snakes’ good burrowing ability. pinesnake’s estimated total prey plantation (23 percent) and clear-cuts The Louisiana pinesnake (P. ruthveni) biomass (Rudolph et al 2012, p. 243). (9 percent). Across all sites including has a buff to yellowish background color Baird’s pocket gophers feed on various pine plantation, snakes appeared to with dark brown to russet dorsal parts of a variety of herbaceous plant select areas with fewer large (>25 cm blotches covering its total length species (Pennoyer 1932, pp. 128–129; dbh) trees. Preferred sites had less (Vandeventer and Young 1989, p. 35; Sulentich et al. 1991, p. 3). Pocket canopy closure and more light Conant and Collins 1991, p. 203). The gopher abundance is associated with a penetration, which supports increased belly of the Louisiana pinesnake ranges low density of trees, an open canopy, understory vegetation growth and from unmarked to boldly patterned with and a small amount of woody vegetation therefore more pocket gophers (Himes et black markings. It is variable in both cover, which allow greater sunlight and al. 2006, pp. 108–110; 113), regardless coloration and pattern, but a more herbaceous forage for pocket of the type of wooded land. A 2-year characteristic feature is that the body gophers (Himes 1998, p. 43; Wagner et (2004–2005) trapping study was markings on its back are always al. 2016, p. 11). conducted at three locations: two were conspicuously different at opposite ends Baird’s pocket gophers also create the mixed long leaf/loblolly pine stands of its body. Blotches run together near burrow systems in which Louisiana being managed specifically for the head, often obscuring the pinesnakes are most frequently found Louisiana pinesnake habitat, and one background color, and then become (Rudolph and Conner 1996, p. 2; was a loblolly pine plantation managed more separate and well-defined towards Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117; for fiber tree production. Using an equal the tail. Typical head markings include Himes 1998, p. 42; Rudolph et al. 1998, number of traps at each location, dark spots on top, dark suture marks on p. 146; Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 62; Reichling et al. (2008, p. 4) found the the labial (lip) scales, head markings, Himes et al. 2006, p. 107), and the same number of Louisiana pinesnakes although rarely, and a dark band or snakes use these burrow systems as in the pine plantation (n = 2) as one of stripe may occur behind the eye nocturnal refugia and hibernacula, and the mixed-pine stands managed for (Boundy and Carr 2017, p. 335). The to escape from fire (Rudolph and Louisiana pinesnake (n = 2); however,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 14968 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

the greatest number of snakes was found spent, on average, 59 percent of daylight therefore, it is likely that undocumented in the second mixed-pine stand hours (sunrise to sunset) below ground, populations of this species occurred but managed for Louisiana pinesnake (n = and moved an average of 541 ft (163 m) were lost before 1930. 8). In addition, the snakes found in pine per day (Ealy et al. 2004, p. 390). The USFS has compiled and plantation conditions appeared thin or Summary of Biological Status and maintains a database of all known emaciated (indicating they probably had Threats Louisiana pinesnake locations not fed recently), and were not (excluding telemetry data). According to recaptured in that habitat, which may Historical and Current Distribution that database, 291 occurrence records of indicate they were moving through The Louisiana pinesnake historically 251 individual Louisiana pinesnakes these sites (Reichling et al. 2008, pp. 9, occurred in portions of northwest and have been verified from 1927 through 14). west-central Louisiana and extreme November 1, 2017 (excluding Life History east-central Texas (Conant 1956, p. 19). reintroductions), all from Louisiana and This area coincides with an isolated, Texas (Pierce 2015, unpub. data). By Louisiana pinesnakes appear to be and the most westerly, occurrence of the comparison, for the Florida pinesnake most active March through May and longleaf pine ecosystem and is situated (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus), a September through November west of the Mississippi River. Most of species with a four-state range (Ernst (especially November), and least active the sandy, longleaf-pine-dominated and Ernst 2003, p. 281), has 874 records December through February and during savannahs historically inhabited by the of occurrence through 2015 in the the summer (especially August) (Himes Louisiana pinesnake had been lost by Florida alone (Enge 2016, pers. comm.). 1998, p. 12). During the winter, the mid-1930s (Bridges and Orzell 1989, Approximately 395 records of Louisiana pinesnakes use Baird’s pocket p. 246; Frost 1993, p. 30). After virgin occurrence exist for the black pinesnake gopher burrows as hibernacula longleaf pine was cut, it rarely (Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi), a (Rudolph et al. 2007 p. 561; Pierce et al. regenerated naturally. In some parts of species listed as threatened, throughout 2014, p. 140). The species does not use the Southeast, free-ranging hogs its range since 1932 (Hinderliter 2016, burrows communally, and they does not depredated the longleaf pine seedlings, pers. comm.). exhibit fidelity to hibernacula sites in and fire suppression allowed shrubs, The Louisiana pinesnake records successive years (Pierce et al. 2014, pp. hardwoods, and loblolly pine to database is continually updated and 140, 142). Louisiana pinesnakes dominate (Frost 1993, pp. 34–36). The corrected based on the latest observed in east Texas appear to be naturally maintained open structure and information and analysis of record semi-fossorial and diurnal, and also abundant herbaceous vegetation quality, and thus the number of verified moved relatively small distances (Ealy characteristic of the historical longleaf records may change over time. et al. 2004, p. 391). In one study, they pine forests was diminished or lost; BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 14969

Figure 1. Current and Historic Range of Louisiana Pinesnake

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4725 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 ER06AP18.045 14970 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C (19,061.2 ha) of USFS lands, 499.7 ac and 67,324.9 ac (27,245.4 ha) of private Those EOHAs occur on 30,751.9 ac (202.2 ha) of State and municipal lands, lands (Table 1). (12,444.8 ha) of DOD lands, 47,101.3 ac TABLE 1—LAND OWNERSHIP IN ACRES (HECTARES) OF ESTIMATED OCCUPIED HABITAT AREAS (EOHAS) FOR LOUISIANA PINESNAKE AS DETERMINED FOR 2016 ACCORDING TO LOCATION RECORDS THROUGH 2015 [Totals may not sum due to rounding]

Total for Estimated occupied U.S. Forest Department State and estimated State habitat area Service of Defense municipal Private occupied habitat area

Louisiana ...... Bienville ...... 0 (0) 0 (0) 363.7 (147.2) 60,727.2 (24,575.5) 61,090.9 (24,722.6) Kisatchie ...... 1,598.8 (647.0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1,598.8 (647.0) Peason Ridge ...... 0 (0) 3,147.3 (1,273.7) 0 (0) 0 (0) 3,147.3 (1,273.7) Fort Polk/Vernon ...... 34,164.7 (13,826.0) 27,601.3 (11,169.8) 0 (0) 222.6 (90.1) 61,988.7 (25,085.9) Catahoula Reintroduction 1,828.5 (739.9) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1,828.5 (739.9)

Louisiana Total ...... 37,592.0 (15,213.0) 30,748.5 (12,443.5) 363.7 (147.2) 60,949.9 (24,665.6) 129,654.1 (52,469.2) Texas ...... Scrappin’ Valley ...... 0 (0) 0 (0) 21.3 (8.6) 5,036.5 (2,038.2) 5,057.8 (2,046.8) Angelina ...... 9,509.3 (3,848.3) 3.3 (1.4) 114.7 (46.4) 1,338.6 (541.7) 10,965.8 (4,437.7)

Texas Total ...... 9,509.3 (3,848.3) 3.3 (1.4) 136.0 (55.1) 6,375.0 (2,579.9) 16,023.6 (6,484.5)

Total Ownership ...... 47,101.3 (19,061.3) 30,751.9 (12,444.8) 499.7 (202.2) 67,324.9 (27,245.4) 145,677.7 (58,953.7)

Population Estimates and Status Most Louisiana pinesnake records trap success, which is a very low level used to approximately delineate of trapping success compared to other The Louisiana pinesnake is one of the occupied habitat were acquired by pinesnake species (Pierce 2017, pers. rarest snakes in North America (Young trapping. Louisiana pinesnake trapping comm.; Pierce 2016a, pers. comm.). For and Vandeventer 1988, p. 203; Himes et across the species’ entire range from instance, a Florida pinesnake trapping al. 2006, p. 114). It was classified in 1992 through November 1, 2017, has effort using similar drift-fence trapping 2007 as endangered on the IUCN’s Red resulted in 113 unique individual methods in one 30,000-ac (12,141-ha) List of Threatened Species (version 3.1; captures during 451,501 trap days. This section of the species’ range captured 87 http://www.iucnredlist.org/). amount of effort amounts to a 1:4,220 unique individuals during 50,960 trap

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 ER06AP18.046 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 14971

days (1:585.7 trap success) over a 13- predation; (D) the inadequacy of 2016, pp. 323–324) and 4.7 million ac year period from 2003 to 2015 (Smith existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) (2.8 million ha) in 2015 (America’s 2016b, pers. comm.). The Louisiana other natural or manmade factors Longleaf Restoration Initiative 2016, p. pinesnake site with the greatest long- affecting its continued existence. Listing 12). term trap success by far, the Bienville actions may be warranted based on any In general, overall forest land area in EOHA, which is 61,091 ac (24,722.6 ha), of the above threat factors, singly or in the southeastern United States is has a trap success rate of 1:1,133. combination. In this section, we predicted to decline between 2 and 10 summarize the biological condition of percent in the next 50 years (Wear and Catahoula Reintroduction Feasibility the species and its resources, and the Greis 2013, p. 78). The projected losses EOHA influences of the listing factors on them, of natural pine forest in the Southeast An informal committee was to assess the species’ overall viability would occur mostly as a result of established to oversee and conduct an and the risks to that viability. conversion to planted pine forests (Wear experimental reintroduction of the and Greis 2013, p. 79). For the southern Louisiana pinesnake in an attempt to Factor A: The Present or Threatened Gulf region, model runs assuming worse evaluate the feasibility of using Destruction, Modification, or case scenarios of high levels of individuals from a captive population to Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range urbanization and high timber prices establish a viable population in restored Both the quantity and quality of the predict large percentage losses in habitat. To date, 91 captive-breed natural longleaf pine ecosystem, the longleaf pine in some parishes and Louisiana pinesnakes have been primary historical habitat of the counties of Louisiana and Texas that released into the wild at the Catahoula Louisiana pinesnake, have declined were historically and that are currently Ranger District of the KNF. sharply in Louisiana and Texas since occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake, European settlement. The loss, Captive-Breeding Population while two Louisiana parishes in the degradation, and fragmentation of the current occupied range are expected to The captive Louisiana pinesnake zoo longleaf pine dominant ecosystem was gain (less than the percent decline population established in 1984 was historically caused by logging, predicted in the other parishes and initially maintained through wild turpentining, fire suppression, alteration counties) in longleaf pine acreage collection. The AZA Species Survival of fire seasonality and periodicity, (Klepzig et al. 2014, p. 53). The outer Plan (SSP) for the Louisiana pinesnake conversion to generally offsite pine boundary or ‘‘footprint’’ of the longleaf was implemented in 2000, to manage species plantations, agriculture, and pine ecosystem across its historical the zoo population (Reichling et al., in free-range hogs (Frost 1993, pp. 24–30, range has contracted as recently as the litt. 2015, p. 1). The goals of the SSP are 31, 35). Virtually all virgin timber in the period of 1990 to 2010, with losses to: Maintain an assurance colony for southern United States was cut during (primarily due to conversion to loblolly wild Louisiana pinesnake populations, intensive logging from 1870 to 1920 pine) in western Louisiana and eastern preserve or increase genetic (Frost 1993, p. 30). Only about 2.9 Texas (Oswalt et al. 2012, pp. 10–14). heterozygosity into the future, preserve percent of longleaf pine forests in Impacts from urbanization vary across representative genetic integrity of wild Louisiana and Texas were uncut old- the Southeast, with most population populations, and provide individuals as growth stands in 1935 (Bridges and growth predicted to occur near major needed for research and repopulation Orzell 1989, p. 246). During the latter cities (Wear and Greis 2013, p. 21), for the conservation of wild populations half of the 20th century, Louisiana, which are generally not near known (Service 2013, pp. 32–33). Alabama, and Mississippi lost between Louisiana pinesnake occurrences. As of November 2017, the captive- 60 and 90 percent of their already However, the most recent assessment breeding Louisiana pinesnake reduced longleaf acreage (Outcalt and still predicts decreased use of land for population consists of 191 individuals Sheffield 1996, pp. 1–10). By the late forests (mainly due to urbanization) in at 13 institutions (Reichling 2017, pers. 1980s, the natural longleaf pine acreage the next 45 years in all of the parishes comm.; Foster 2017a pers. comm.). in Louisiana and Texas was only about (Louisiana) and counties (Texas) Except for a downturn between about 15 and 8 percent, respectively, of what historically and currently occupied by 2001 and 2005, hatching success has had existed in 1935 (Bridges and Orzell the species (Klepzig et al. 2014, pp. 21– steadily increased since about 1987 1989, p. 246). Those longleaf pine 23). (Reichling 2017, pers. comm.), forests were primarily converted to High-quality longleaf pine forest especially in the last 2 years: the extensive monoculture pine plantations habitat, which is generally characterized number of hatchlings produced in 2017 (Bridges and Orzell 1989, p. 246). by a high, open canopy and shallow increased nearly 50 percent over the In short, the longleaf-dominant pine litter and duff layers, is maintained by number of hatchlings produced in 2016 forest (longleaf pine forest type plus frequent, low-intensity fires, which in (Foster 2017b, pers. comm.). longleaf pine in mixed-species stands) turn restrict a woody midstory and in the southeastern United States promote the flowering and seed Summary of Factors Affecting the declined approximately 96 percent from production of fire-stimulated Species the historical estimate of 92 million ac groundcover plants (Oswalt et al. 2012, Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), (37 million ha) (Frost 1993, p. 20) to pp. 2–3). The Louisiana pinesnake is and its implementing regulations at 50 approximately 3.75 million ac (1.52 historically associated with natural CFR part 424, set forth the procedures million ha) in 1990 (Guldin et al. 2016, longleaf pine forests, which were for adding species to the Federal Lists p. 324). Since the 1990s, longleaf-pine- maintained in good condition by natural of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife dominant forest acreage has been processes and have the abundant and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the trending upward in parts of the herbaceous vegetation necessary to Act, we may list a species based on (A) Southeast through restoration efforts support the Louisiana pinesnake’s The present or threatened destruction, (Guldin et al. 2016, pp. 323–324). The primary prey, the Baird’s pocket gopher modification, or curtailment of its longleaf-dominant pine forest stands (Himes 1998, p. 43; Sulentich et al. habitat or range; (B) overutilization for had increased to approximately 4.3 1991, p. 3; Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, commercial, recreational, scientific, or million ac (1.7 million ha) by 2010 p. 17). Areas managed with silvicultural educational purposes; (C) disease or (Oswalt et al. 2012, p. 10; Guldin et al. practices for fiber production do not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 14972 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

allow sufficient herbaceous vegetation Fisheries (LDWF), was completed. in longleaf pine forests, and that forest growth and are not adequate to support Targeted conservation actions are type was historically the dominant type viable Louisiana pinesnake populations currently being implemented as part of in the areas that now make up the KNF, (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 470). Indeed, that agreement. The CCA identifies and ANF, and Fort Polk. further trapping at the same sites establishes beneficial habitat The CCA was revised in 2013, and sampled in the Reichling et al. (2008) management actions for the Louisiana now also includes the U.S. Department study from 2006 through 2016 has pinesnake on Federal lands in Louisiana of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural resulted in a 1:877.2 trap success rate and Texas, and provides a means for the Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and a 1:808.5 trap success rate for the partnering agencies to work and the AZA as cooperators (Service first and second beneficially managed cooperatively on projects that avoid and 2013, pp. 7–8). That agreement updates, stands, respectively, and a 1:2,744.0 trap minimize impacts to the species. The supersedes, and improves upon the success rate for the plantation site CCA also set up mechanisms to 2003 CCA, and uses significant new (Pierce 2017, unpub. data). exchange information on successful information from research, threats Existing and Planned Conservation management practices and coordinate assessments, and habitat modeling that Efforts: As early as the 1980s, forest research efforts. SNF (Sabine Louisiana was not available in 2003 to focus restoration and management had been pinesnake population considered conservation actions, including implemented on Fort Polk, Peason extirpated since 2014) and ANF in beneficial forest management, in areas Ridge, and adjacent USFS lands to Texas, and KNF and Fort Polk in with the best potential to become restore and maintain conditions of Louisiana, agreed in the CCA to suitable habitat for the Louisiana widely spaced trees, clear of dense continue or start new stem thinning and pinesnake. Those areas are called midstory growth (U.S. Department of prescribed burning operations in habitat management units (HMUs), the Army 2014, p. 21). Management sections of upland pine forests and, which were delineated based on occurred for training suitability and red- where possible, to convert forests to existing red-cockaded woodpecker cockaded woodpecker habitat, and most longleaf pine (CCA 2003, pp. 12–16). habitat management areas in upland recently for Louisiana pinesnake pine forests. Those areas were further habitat. The requirements for those Since completion of the CCA, defined by the location of preferable and three objectives happen to have beneficial forest management activities significant overlap, especially the conducted by USFS and Fort Polk now suitable soils (LRSF Model) for the maintenance of open-canopy pine formally include conservation of the Louisiana pinesnake in order to forest. Most forest management Louisiana pinesnake. Removing some dedicate resources to areas the species beneficial to the Louisiana pinesnake to trees from a dense stand with heavy is most likely to inhabit. The CCA also date has been performed primarily for canopy cover allows more light to reach includes guidance on practices to the benefit of the red-cockaded the ground, which can promote the reduce impacts to Louisiana pinesnakes woodpecker. growth of herbaceous vegetation, an from vehicles on improved roads and USFS has implemented habitat important food source for the primary off-road all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails restoration and management for many prey of the Louisiana pinesnake. (see ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce years on Sabine National Forest (SNF), Prescribed burning helps to control Threats Under Factor E,’’ below). Angelina National Forest (ANF), and midstory cover, particularly hardwood Thousands of acres of forests on KNF to benefit the red-cockaded species that compete with pine Federal lands have been treated over woodpecker, as provided for in its land seedlings and reduce light penetration. many years (beginning well before the and resource management plans (USFS Converting forests to longleaf pine is CCA) with prescribed burning, and that 1996, pp. 107–134; USFS 1999, pp. 2– helpful because longleaf pine is better treatment along with tree thinning 61 to 2–73). In 2003, a candidate adapted to fire (and tolerates it at an continues to the present. The following conservation agreement (CCA) for the earlier age) than other pine species and, tables summarize recent forest Louisiana pinesnake, which includes therefore, is generally easier to manage management activities on Federal lands the Service, USFS, DOD, Texas Parks with prescribed fire over multiple where Louisiana pinesnake populations and Wildlife Department (TPWD), and rotations. Historically, Louisiana occur. Values have been rounded to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and pinesnakes were predominantly found nearest acre.

TABLE 2—ACRES (HECTARES) OF PRESCRIBED BURNING AND THINNING CONDUCTED IN THE KISATCHIE RANGER DISTRICT OF THE KNF (KISATCHIE POPULATION) WITHIN THE 2014 DELINEATED EOHA (1,599 TOTAL ac [647 ha]) AND THE LARGER SURROUNDING HMU (36,114 TOTAL ac [14,615 ha])

Stocking Prescribed Prescribed reduction Area burning 2015 burning (thinning) 2013–2015 2015

EOHA ...... 963 (390) 1,980 (801) 0 (0) HMU ...... 4,285 (1,734) 24,893 (10,074) 193 (78)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 14973

TABLE 3—ACRES (ha) OF PRESCRIBED BURNING AND THINNING CONDUCTED IN THE VERNON UNIT OF THE KNF (FORT POLK/VERNON POPULATION) WITHIN THE 2014 DELINEATED EOHA (34,487 TOTAL ACRES [13,956 ha]) AND THE LARGER SURROUNDING HMU (61,387 TOTAL ACRES [24,842 ha])

Stocking Prescribed Prescribed Reduction Area burning 2015 burning (thinning) 2013–2015 2015

EOHA ...... 12,670 (5,127) 43,281 (17,515) 1,541 (624)

TABLE 4—ACRES (ha) OF PRESCRIBED BURNING AND THINNING CONDUCTED AT FORT POLK (FORT POLK/VERNON POPU- LATION) WITHIN THE 2014 DELINEATED EOHA (27,502 TOTAL ACRES [11,130 ha]) AND THE LARGER SURROUNDING HMU (29,037 TOTAL ACRES [11,751 ha])

Stocking Prescribed Prescribed reduction Area burning 2015 burning (thinning) 2013–2015 2015

EOHA ...... 7,675 (3,106) 22,628 (9,157) 430 (174) HMU ...... 9,159 (3,707) 24,241 (9,810) 586 (237)

TABLE 5—ACRES (HECTARES) OF PRESCRIBED BURNING AND THINNING CONDUCTED AT PEASON RIDGE (PEASON RIDGE POPULATION) WITHIN THE 2014 DELINEATED EOHA (4,886 TOTAL ac [1,977 ha]) AND THE LARGER SURROUNDING HMU (11,265 TOTAL ac [4,559 ha])

Prescribed Stocking Area Prescribed burning reduction burning 2015 2013–2015 (thinning) 2015

EOHA ...... 489 (198) 2,597 (1,051) 0 (0) HMU ...... 2,651 (1,073) 7,440 (3,011) 100 (40)

TABLE 6—ACRES (ha) OF PRESCRIBED BURNING AND THINNING CONDUCTED IN ANF (ANF POPULATION) WITHIN THE 2014 DELINEATED EOHA (10,966 TOTAL ac [4,438 ha]) AND THE LARGER SURROUNDING HMU (24,200 TOTAL ac [9,793 ha])

Prescribed Stocking Area Prescribed burning reduction burning 2015 2013–2015 (thinning) 2015

EOHA ...... 2,735 (1,107) 10,179 (4,119) 0 (0) HMU ...... 6,702 (2,712) 18,940 (7,665) 0 (0)

TABLE 7—ACRES (HECTARES) OF PRESCRIBED BURNING AND THINNING CONDUCTED IN THE CATAHOULA RANGER DIS- TRICT KNF (CATAHOULA REINTRODUCTION FEASIBILITY POPULATION) WITHIN THE 2014 DELINEATED EOHA (1,828 TOTAL ac [740 ha]) AND THE LARGER SURROUNDING HMU (57,394 TOTAL ac [ha])

Prescribed Prescribed Stocking Area burning burning reduction 2015 2011–2015 (thinning) 2015

EOHA ...... 784 (317) 784 (317) 0 (0) HMU ...... 8,279 (3,350) 40,419 (16,357) 231 (93)

Within the Bienville EOHA, the 851– 50 percent (430 ac (174 ha)) and 55 Additionally, midstory (hardwood and ac (344–ha) Kepler Lake and 859–ac percent (475 ac (192 ha)), respectively, shrub) control is achieved in the CMAs (348–ha) Sandylands Core Management have been planted with longleaf pine by application of herbicide in narrow Areas (CMAs) (approximately 2.8 beginning in 2001. Using a combination bands alongside the planted trees percent of the EOHA) were voluntarily of supplemental funding sources (e.g., instead of broadcast spraying, which established by the landowners at the Service Private Stewardship Grant, limits damage of herbaceous vegetation. time to be managed for Louisiana Western Gulf Coastal Plain Prescribed Most of the 59,380 acres (24,030 ha) pinesnake habitat. According to the Burning Initiative), the present of timberlands surrounding the CMAs of current landowner (Cook 2016a, 2016b, landowner has completed prescribed the Bienville population are managed pers. comm.), in the loblolly-longleaf burning of hundreds of acres on the with intensive silvicultural practices pine mixed stands of the Kepler Lake CMAs each year since 2000 (except in that typically preclude continual, robust and Sandylands CMAs, approximately 2005, 2008, 2009, and 2012). herbaceous vegetation growth. Reichling

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 14974 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

et al. (2008, p. 10) did not believe that there is a dense midstory. Several policy considers that all CCAAs will isolated management areas that were hundred acres are composed of young provide benefits to covered species 800 to 1,000 ac (324 to 405 ha) or less loblolly pine plantation. In 2014, through implementation of voluntary in size were sufficient to support viable approximately 400 ac (162 ha) were conservation measures that are agreed to Louisiana pinesnake populations and harvested, and in 2015, approximately and implemented by property owners. therefore concluded the snakes in the 205 ac (83 ha) of longleaf pine were The Louisiana pinesnake Kepler Lake CMA were likely planted. The landowner voluntarily programmatic CCAA is intended to dependent upon the surrounding agreed to manage the area to promote establish a framework for participation habitat. Consequently, Reichling et al. longleaf pine forest over a 10-year of the Service and LDWF, and enrollees, (2008, p. 10) felt that it was essential to period through a Partners for Fish and through specific actions for the the conservation of the species to restore Wildlife Program agreement with the protection, conservation, management, and preserve the thousands of hectares Service. Additionally, approximately and improvement of the status of the of privately owned, upland, xeric 1,000 ac of this property are prescribed Louisiana pinesnake. Initiation of this habitat that surround the Kepler Lake burned annually. CCAA will further the conservation of CMA. Overall, less than 50 percent of the the Louisiana pinesnake on private The 5,057.8–ac (2,046.8–ha) Scrappin’ Scrappin’ Valley EOHA is being lands by protecting known populations Valley EOHA is located at least partially managed beneficially for the Louisiana and additional potential habitat by within 11,000 acres (4,452 ha) of pinesnake, but more than 50 percent of reducing threats to the species’ habitat privately owned forested land referred the area is covered under safe harbor and survival, restoring degraded to as Scrappin’ Valley. That area was agreements for the red-cockaded potential habitat on preferred and managed for game animals for decades woodpecker, which require forest suitable soils, and potentially (Reid 2016, pers. comm.), and one management that is generally beneficial reintroducing captive-bred snakes to section (approximately 600 ac (243 ha)) to the Louisiana pinesnake. select areas of the restored habitat. was managed specifically for quail. Longleaf pine forest improvement and Additional research and survey efforts Prescribed burning was applied only restoration efforts are also currently related to the Louisiana pinesnake are to the 600–ac (243–ha) quail area occurring within the historical range of funded by the Texas Comptroller’s annually and to another 1,500 ac (607 the Louisiana pinesnake on smaller office and being underway by Texas ha) at less frequent intervals. The private properties, especially through A&M University; results are expected to remainder of the property was not programs administered by natural provide additional information on the beneficially managed for Louisiana resource agencies such as NRCS and species’ habitat requirements in Texas, pinesnake habitat. In 2012, the property nonprofit organizations such as The which may contribute to future was subdivided and sold as three Nature Conservancy (TNC). NRCS has conservation efforts. Surveyors are separate properties of 1,900, 1,500, and provided assistance with thousands of expected to access suitable habitat on 7,700 acres (769, 607, and 3,116 ha), acres of forest thinning, longleaf pine private lands that have previously been respectively. planting, and prescribed burning unavailable. On the 1,900–ac (769-ha) property (Chevallier 2016, pers. comm.). In summary, forest management from 2013 to spring 2016, hundreds of However, the extent of overlap of beneficial to the Louisiana pinesnake acres (some acres burned multiple increases in longleaf pine acreage, due has occurred across significant portions times) of longleaf-dominated pine forest to this program, with occupied or of most Louisiana pinesnake EOHAs. occupied by the red-cockaded potential Louisiana pinesnake habitat The significant increases in the acreages woodpecker or near red-cockaded (i.e., preferable or suitable soils) is of burning and thinning conducted have woodpecker clusters were prescribed- unknown because the specific locations improved habitat conditions on many burned each year; hardwood removal of the projects within the area serviced Federal lands that support Louisiana was conducted on 300 ac (121 ha); are private and unavailable to the pinesnake populations (Rudolph 2008b, thinning by removal of loblolly and Service. TNC owns 1,551 ac (628 ha) of pers. comm.) and reduced the threat of slash pine trees was conducted land within the Vernon Unit of KNF habitat loss in those areas. On private throughout the entire property; and 105 that is managed for the red-cockaded land, there has also been habitat ac (42 ha) of longleaf pine restoration woodpecker and the Louisiana restoration and beneficial management, (removal of existing trees and planted pinesnake (Jacob 2016, pers. comm.). on generally a smaller scale than on with long leaf pine) was completed. The The Service and LDWF have Federal lands. The Bienville population, landowner is also currently working developed a programmatic candidate which appears to be the most abundant, with The Nature Conservancy toward a conservation agreement with assurances has only about 1,700 ac (688 ha) of perpetual conservation easement on (CCAA) for the Louisiana pinesnake. A habitat currently managed specifically 2,105 ac (852 ha) to protect habitat for CCAA is intended to facilitate the for the Louisiana pinesnake, and the the red-cockaded woodpecker and the conservation of candidate species by home range of one Louisiana pinesnake Louisiana pinesnake. giving non-Federal property owners can be as much as 267 ac (108 ha). On the 1,500–ac (607–ha) property in (enrollees) incentives to implement Trap success within Louisiana 2015, approximately 250 ac (101 ha) of conservation measures. The incentive to pinesnake populations has not loblolly pine with dense understory a property owner provided through a increased over time (Rudolph et al. vegetation was harvested, and 200 ac CCAA is that the Service will impose no 2015, p. 33; Pierce 2015, unpub. data) (81 ha) of the area was planted with further land-, water-, or resource-use that would imply an increase in longleaf pine. The landowner restrictions beyond those agreed to in abundance. As just discussed, extensive voluntarily agreed to manage the area to the CCAA should the species later habitat restoration efforts have occurred promote longleaf pine forest over a 10- become listed under the Act. If the on Federal lands where the Louisiana year period through a Partners for Fish species does become listed, the property pinesnake occurs. Although the threat of and Wildlife Program agreement with owner is authorized to take the covered habitat loss has been reduced on much the Service. species as long as the level of take is of these lands, none of the populations On the 7,700–ac (3,116–ha) property, consistent with the level identified and have shown an observable response to most of the forest was not burned, so agreed upon in the CCAA. The CCAA forest management conservation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 14975

activities. The species also has a low remaining land in the EOHAs with due to the species’ secretive nature, reproductive rate, so recruitment to the suitable or preferable soils is generally semi-fossorial habits, and current rarity. population may not be detected for unsuitable habitat because of the current Previously in Texas, TPWD has several years. However, it is also vegetation structure. allowed captured Louisiana pinesnakes possible that some potential increases in Although the threat of habitat loss has to be removed from the wild by snake abundance may not be captured been reduced in much of the Louisiana permitted scientific researchers to help where newly created suitable habitat pinesnake’s occupied habitat overall, supplement the low representation of may not be in close proximity to the the likely most abundant population has snakes from Texas populations in the current trap locations. relatively little beneficially managed AZA-managed captive-breeding program. Currently, LDWF does not Summary of Factor A land, and none of the populations has yet shown a definitive response to forest permit the removal from the wild of any In summary, the loss and degradation management conservation activities. wild- caught Louisiana pinesnakes to of habitat was a significant historical add founders to the AZA-managed threat, and remains a current threat, to Factor B: Overutilization for captive-breeding program. the Louisiana pinesnake. The historical Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Although concern has been expressed loss of habitat within the longleaf pine Educational Purposes that Federal listing may increase the ecosystem occupied by Louisiana Ongoing take of Louisiana pinesnakes demand for wild-caught animals pinesnakes occurred primarily due to in Louisiana for commercial, (McNabb 2014, in litt.), based on the timber harvest and subsequent recreational, scientific, or educational best available information, we have no conversion of pine forests to agriculture, purposes has not been previously evidence that overutilization for residential development, and managed considered a threat (Boundy 2008, pers. commercial, recreational, scientific, or pine plantations with only intermittent educational purposes is currently a comm.). Removal from wild populations periods of open canopy. This loss of threat to the Louisiana pinesnake. for scientific purposes is not expected to habitat has slowed considerably in increase significantly in the future. Any Factor C: Disease or Predation recent years, in part due to efforts to potential overutilization would be restore the longleaf pine ecosystem in Like many other animals, the almost exclusively to meet the demand the Southeast. In areas occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake is very likely from recreational snake enthusiasts. Louisiana pinesnake on USFS and U.S. impacted by native predators, and According to a 2009 report of the United Army lands, mixed-pine forests (e.g. potentially by introduced predators. longleaf, loblolly, slash, and minor Nations Environment Program—World Known natural wild predators of amounts of scattered shortleaf) are Conservation Monitoring Centre pinesnakes include mammals such as managed beneficially for the species (UNEP—WCMC 2009, p. 17), captive- shrews, raccoons, skunks, and red foxes through thinning, and through bred Louisiana pinesnakes were (Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 284; Yager et prescribed burning of thousands of acres advertised for sale on four German al. 2006, p. 34). All of these species are of forests every year. However, habitat websites, and two U.S. breeders were common in the range of the Louisiana loss is continuing today on private land listed on another website. However, pinesnake. Several of these mammalian due to incompatible forestry practices, current levels of Louisiana pinesnake predators may be anthropogenically conversion to agriculture, and collection to support the commercial enhanced; that is, their numbers often urbanization, which result in increasing captive-bred snake market have not increase with human development habitat fragmentation (see discussion been quantified. There appears to be adjacent to natural areas (Fischer et al. under Factor E: Other Natural or very little demand for this species by 2012, pp. 810–811). Birds, especially Manmade Factors Affecting Its private collectors (Reichling 2008, pers. hawks, also prey on pinesnakes (Ernst Continued Existence). While the use of comm.; Vandeventer 2016, pers. and Ernst 2003, p. 284; Yager et al. prescribed fire for habitat management comm.); however, there are at least a 2006, p. 34). One Louisiana pinesnake and more compatible site preparation few Louisiana pinesnake breeders, and was described as being ‘‘in combat with has seen increased emphasis in recent the snakes were still featured in hawk,’’ presumably the result of a years, expanded urbanization, advertisements recently for several predation attempt by the bird (Young fragmentation, and regulatory hundred dollars for one adult and Vandeventer 1988, p. 204; Pierce constraints will continue to restrict the (Castellanos 2016, pers. obs.). Given the 2015, unpub. data). Some snake species use of fire and cause further habitat restricted distribution, presumed low prey on other snakes, including degradation (Wear and Greis 2013, p. population sizes, and low reproductive pinesnakes. The scarlet snake 509). potential of Louisiana pinesnakes, even (Cemophora coccinea) preys on Extensive conservation efforts are moderate collecting pressure would northern pinesnake eggs (Burger et al. being implemented that are restoring negatively affect extant populations of 1992, p. 260). This species is found and maintaining Louisiana pinesnake this species. In long-lived snake species within the range of the Louisiana habitat for the Fort Polk/Vernon, Peason exhibiting low fecundity, the sustained pinesnake. An eastern coachwhip Ridge, Kisatchie, and Angelina removal of adults from isolated (Masticophis flagellum flagellum), populations. Those populations are not populations can eventually lead to which is an abundant species in the threatened by continuing habitat loss. extirpation (Webb et al. 2002, p. 64). Louisiana pinesnake’s range, was Portions of occupied habitat of the Non-permitted collection of the observed attempting to predate a Scrappin’ Valley (approximately 50 Louisiana pinesnake is prohibited by juvenile northern pinesnake in North percent) and Bienville populations State law in Texas and Louisiana (see Carolina (Beane 2014, p. 143). Speckled (about 2.8 percent) of the Louisiana Factor D below), and most areas in kingsnakes (Lampropeltis getula pinesnake are also currently being Louisiana where extant Louisiana holbrooki) prey on pinesnakes (Ernst managed beneficially through voluntary pinesnake populations occur restrict and Ernst 2003, p. 279), and one caught agreements. However, future public access or prohibit collection. In in a trap set for the Louisiana pinesnake conservation on private lands, which addition, general public collection of was observed to have recently can change ownership and management the Louisiana pinesnake would be consumed another snake (Gregory 2015, practices, is uncertain, and the difficult (Gregory 2008, pers. comm.) pers. comm.).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 14976 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

Pinesnakes also suffer from attacks by McBride et al. 2015, p. 89), including Service 2002, p. 1). The capture, domesticated mammals, including dogs one juvenile broad-banded watersnake removal, or killing of non-game wildlife and cats (Ernst and Ernst 2003, p. 284). (Nerodia fasciata confluens [Blanchard]) from Fort Polk and Peason Ridge (DOD Lyman et al. (2007, p. 39) reported an in Louisiana (Glorioso et al. 2016, p. land) is prohibited without a special attack on a black pinesnake by a stray N5). As of November 2017, the causative permit (U.S. Department of the Army domestic dog, which resulted in the fungus (Ophidiomyces ophiodiicola 2008, p. 6; U.S. Department of the Army snake’s death. [OO]) (Lorch et al. 2015, p. 5; Allender 2013, p. 51). USFS’s land and resource Invasive feral hogs inhabit some et al. 2015, p. 6) has been found on at management plans (KNF, ANF), the Louisiana pinesnake EOHAs (Gregory least five Louisiana pinesnakes from the Army’s integrated natural resources 2016, pers. comm.), including the Bienville and Fort Polk populations management plans (Fort Polk Main Post Catahoula Reintroduction Feasibility since 2015, and evidence of disease has and Peason Ridge), and the Louisiana EOHA (Nolde 2016, pers. comm.), and been documented in at least three pinesnake CCA all require habitat are known to prey upon vertebrate individuals. Symptoms of SFD (e.g., management that is beneficial to the animals, including snakes (Wood and skin lesions) were found on a Louisiana Louisiana pinesnake for the Kisatchie Roark 1980, p. 508). They will also pinesnake from the Bienville population NF, Angelina NF, Fort Polk/Vernon, and consume eggs of ground-nesting birds in 2015, and OO was positively Peason Ridge populations (see (Henry 1969, p. 170; Timmons et al. identified (Lorch et al., 2016). Another ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat 2011, pp. 1–2) and reptiles (Elsey et al. individual from Bienville that also Destruction, Modification, or 2012, pp. 210–213); however, there is no tested positive for OO had necrotic Curtailment of Its Range,’’ above). The direct evidence that feral hogs prey on tissue but it had been involved in a Service has never been informed of any Louisiana pinesnakes or their eggs. presumed agonistic confrontation with a difficulties in the implementation or Therefore, at this time, feral hogs are not weasel while entrapped; therefore, the enforcement of the existing regulatory known to be a threat to the Louisiana cause of the injury was not mechanisms that protect Louisiana pinesnake. The Service and USFS are determinable. Two individuals from the pinesnakes by TPWD, LDWF, or Federal currently engaged in feral hog Fort Polk population were found in a land managers, and no occurrences of population control throughout diseased state. Their symptoms noncompliance, including killing of Louisiana and Texas. included: low body weight, anemia, snakes, have been reported to us (see Red imported fire ants (Solenopsis dehydration, skin lesions and systemic Factor E discussion, below). invicta), an invasive species, have been inflammation, and their survival in the Its habitat requirements being similar implicated in trap mortalities of black wild was doubtful (Sperry 2017, pers. to that of the red-cockaded woodpecker, pinesnakes during field studies (Baxley comm.). Both were treated with anti- the Louisiana pinesnake receives 2007, p. 17). Red imported fire ants also fungal medication by a veterinarian and indirect protection of its habitat via the occur in areas occupied by Louisiana eventually recovered. A disease with protections of the Act provided for the pinesnakes and are potential predators symptoms consistent with SFD is endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, of Louisiana pinesnake eggs and suspected of contributing to as many as where it co-occurs with the red- hatchlings (Parris et al. 2002, p. 514; 20 mortalities in a small, isolated cockaded woodpecker on Federal lands. Beane 2014, p. 142); they have also been population of timber rattlesnakes These existing regulatory mechanisms documented predating snake eggs under (Crotalus horridus) (Clark et al. 2011, p. provide no protection from the threat of experimental conditions (Diffie et al. 888). We are currently unaware of any Louisiana pinesnake habitat loss and 2010, p. 294). population-level negative impacts on degradation on privately owned lands. There are no documented occurrences the Louisiana pinesnake. We know of no Private landowners within some of successful predation (excessive or other diseases that are affecting the occupied habitat of the Scrappin’ Valley otherwise) specifically on Louisiana species. Because the causative fungus of population have voluntarily committed pinesnakes, predation on pinesnakes SFD has been found in two Louisiana to agreements with the Service to has been documented (Burger et al. pinesnake populations, SFD has caused manage those areas with prescribed 1992, entire; Baxley 2007, p. 17; Ernst severe negative impacts to at least two burning and to promote the longleaf and Ernst 2003, p. 284; Ernst and Ernst individuals, and SFD has caused pine ecosystem for 10 years. 2003, p. 284; Yager et al. 2006, p. 34). morbidity and mortality in several other In summary, although existing Malicious killing of snakes by humans snake species, the Service has regulatory mechanisms appear to be is a significant issue in snake concluded that disease (SFD) is now adequate to prohibit direct harm to conservation because snakes arouse fear considered a potential threat to the individual Louisiana pinesnakes across and resentment from the general public Louisiana pinesnake. their entire range, and offer some (Bonnet et al. 1999, p. 40). Intentional protection to habitat on publicly owned killing of black pinesnakes by humans Factor D: The Inadequacy of Existing land, they offer no protection to the has been documented (Duran 1998, p. Regulatory Mechanisms already degraded, fragmented, and 34; Lyman et al. 2008, p. 34). The In Texas, the Louisiana pinesnake is declining habitat that exists on private intentional killing of Louisiana listed as State threatened, and lands. pinesnakes by humans is not unlikely, prohibited from unauthorized collection but because of the species’ relatively (31 Texas Administrative Code [TAC] Factor E: Other Natural or Manmade low abundance and secretive nature, it sections 65.171–176). As of February Factors Affecting Its Continued likely happens very infrequently and, 2013, unpermitted killing or removal of Existence therefore, is not considered a threat at the Louisiana pinesnake from the wild The historical loss, degradation, and this time. is prohibited in Louisiana (Louisiana fragmentation of the longleaf pine Snake fungal disease (SFD) is an Administrative Code, title 76, part XV, ecosystem across the entire historical emerging disease in certain populations Reptiles and Amphibians, chapter 1, range of the Louisiana pinesnake have of wild snakes. It has been linked to section 101.J.3(f)). Collection or resulted in six natural extant Louisiana morbidity and mortality for other harassment of Louisiana pinesnake is pinesnake populations that are isolated species (Allender et al. 2011, p. 2383; also specifically prohibited on USFS and small. Habitat fragmentation and Rajeev et al. 2009, p. 1264 and 1268; properties in Louisiana (USDA Forest degradation on lands in between extant

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 14977

populations (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. observed deficit of snake captures in and Kinkead 2005, p. 34A; Kapfer and 470) have likely reduced the potential traps near roads suggests that a Paloski 2011, p. 1; Zappalorti 2016, p. for successful dispersal among remnant substantial proportion of the total 19). This netting often takes years to populations, as well as the potential for number of snakes may have been decompose, creating a long-term hazard natural recolonization of vacant or eliminated due to road-related mortality to snakes, even when the material has extirpated habitat patches. (Rudolph et al. 1999, p. 130). That study been discarded (Stuart et al. 2001, p. Those Louisiana pinesnake found that populations of large snakes 163). Although no known instance of populations are already small, which may be depressed by 50 percent or more injury or death from this netting has could potentially reduce the positive due to proximity to roads, and been documented for Louisiana fitness effect of having greater numbers measurable impacts may extend up to pinesnakes, it has been demonstrated to or density of conspecifics (also known approximately 0.5 mi (850 m) from have negative impacts on other as the Allee principle or effect). One roads. terrestrial snake species of all sizes and mechanism for Allee effects is thought During a radio-telemetry study in thus poses a potential threat to the to be the greater ability to locate mates. Louisiana and Texas, 3 of the 15 (20 Louisiana pinesnake when used in its For the Louisiana pinesnake, it is the percent) Louisiana pinesnake deaths habitat. lack of Allee effects that could be documented could be attributed to Exotic plant species degrade habitat negatively affecting this species and vehicle mortality (Himes et al. 2002, p. for wildlife, and in the Southeast, preventing the observance of positive 686). Approximately 16 percent (37 of longleaf pine forest associations are effects of beneficial forest management. 235) of all documented Louisiana susceptible to invasion by the exotic Small, isolated populations resulting pinesnake occurrences were on roads, cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica). from habitat fragmentation are and about half of those were dead Cogongrass may rapidly encroach into vulnerable to the threats of decreased individuals (Pierce 2015, unpub. data). areas undergoing habitat restoration and demographic viability, increased During Duran’s (1998, pp. 6, 34) study is very difficult to eradicate once it has susceptibility of extirpation from on Camp Shelby, Mississippi, 17 become established, requiring aggressive stochastic environmental factors (e.g., percent of the black pinesnakes with control with herbicides (Yager et al. extreme weather events, epidemic transmitters were killed while 2010, pp. 229–230). Cogongrass disease), and the potential loss of attempting to cross a road. In a larger displaces native grasses, greatly valuable genetic resources resulting study currently being conducted on reducing foraging areas for some from genetic isolation with subsequent Camp Shelby, 14 (38 percent) of the 37 animals, and forms thick mats that genetic drift, decreases in pinesnakes found on the road between restrict movement of ground-dwelling heterozygosity, and potentially 2004 to 2012 were found dead, and wildlife; it also burns at high inbreeding depression (Lacy 1987, p. these 14 individuals represent about 13 temperatures that can kill or injure 147). Wild populations of the Louisiana percent of all the pinesnakes found on native seedlings and mature trees pinesnake had lower heterozygosity and Camp Shelby during that 8-year span (DeBerry and Pashley 2008, p. 74; higher inbreeding than what is expected (Lyman et al. 2012, p. 42). In Louisiana Alabama Cooperative Extension System from a randomly breeding population and Texas, areas with relatively large 2005, p. 1). Its value as forage for pocket (Kwiatkowski et al. 2014, pp. 15–18). areas of protected suitable habitat and gophers is not known. Currently, Low genetic diversity in small, isolated controlled access such as Fort Polk, cogongrass is limited to only a few populations has been associated with KNF, and ANF, have several roads locations in Louisiana and Texas and is negative effects on reproduction in located within Louisiana pinesnake not considered a threat to the Louisiana snakes (Madsen 1996, p. 116). Recovery occupied habitat, and there have been a pinesnake. However, cogongrass has of a Louisiana pinesnake population total of eight known mortalities due to significantly invaded States to the east from the existing individuals within the vehicles in those areas (Pierce 2015, of Louisiana, such as Alabama and population following a decline is also unpub. data). Mississippi (Alabama Cooperative uncertain because of the species’ low In addition, Dodd et al. (2004, p. 619) Extension System 2005, p. 1–4; USDA reproductive rate (smallest clutch size of determined that roads fragment habitat NRCS Plant Database 2016, p. 2), where any North American colubrid snake) for wildlife. Clark et al. (2010, pp. 1059– it occurs in pine forests on Camp Shelby (Reichling 1990, p. 221). Additionally, it 1069) studied the impacts of roads on (Yager et al. 2005, p. 23) potentially is extremely unlikely that habitat population structure and connectivity in impacting the habitat of black corridors linking extant populations timber rattlesnakes (Crotalus horridus). pinesnakes found there. will be secured and restored; therefore, They found that roads interrupted The effects of climate change are the loss of any extant population will be dispersal, which negatively affected predicted to have profound impacts on permanent without future genetic diversity and gene flow among humans and wildlife in nearly every reintroduction and successful populations of this large snake. Those part of the world (International Panel on recruitment of captive-bred individuals. effects were likely due to road mortality Climate Change [IPCC] 2014, p. 6). One Roads surrounding and traversing the and avoidance of roads (Clark et al. downscaled projection for future remaining Louisiana pinesnake habitat 2010, pp. 1059, 1067). precipitation change within the pose a direct threat to the species. On many construction project sites, historical range of the Louisiana Population viability analyses have erosion control blankets are used to pinesnake varies between increasing shown that extinction probabilities for lessen impacts from weathering, secure and decreasing, but the average change some snake species may increase due to newly modified surfaces, and maintain is between 0.1 in (0.254 cm) drier and road mortality (Row et al. 2007, p. 117). water quality and ecosystem health. 1.1 in (2.8 cm) drier from 2020 to 2039 Adult eastern indigo snakes However, the commonly used (Pinemap 2016, entire). Precipitation is (Drymarchon corais couperi) have polypropylene mesh netting (also often projected to decrease for the 20 years relatively high survival in conservation utilized for bird exclusion) has been following 2039. Additionally, the core areas, but greatly reduced survival documented as being an entanglement average summer temperature in the in edges of these areas along highways hazard for many snake species, causing species’ historical range is expected to and in suburbs (Breininger et al. 2012, lacerations and sometimes mortality increase by 2.7–3.5 degrees Fahrenheit p. 361). In a Texas snake study, an (Stuart et al. 2001, pp. 162–163; Barton (Pinemap 2016, entire). Increasing

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 14978 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

temperature and decreasing introduction of captive-bred Factor E may act together and in precipitation could potentially affect the individuals. combination with threats listed above pine forest habitat of the Louisiana As discussed above under Population under Factors A through D and increase pinesnake due to drought stress on Estimates and Status, efforts to their severity. trees, and the snake itself may be reintroduce Louisiana pinesnakes have For additional information related to susceptible to injury from higher been conducted only at the KNF the summary of factors affecting the temperatures or from decreased water Catahoula District site. So far, there species, please refer to the Summary of availability. However, we are not aware have been no attempts to augment Factors Affecting the Species section in of any information that would existing populations of Louisiana the October 6, 2016, proposed rule for substantiate those effects or how the pinesnakes with captive-bred additional discussion of the factors Louisiana pinesnake might adapt to individuals. While reintroduction as a affecting the Louisiana pinesnake (see those potential environmental stressors. conservation tool is not universally ADDRESSES). accepted as effective for all animals, and Effects of native phytophagous (plant- Determination eating) insect species on Louisiana the results of current reintroduction Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), pinesnake habitat may increase due to pilot efforts remain uncertain, the and its implementing regulations in title the effects of climate change. In a study number (91) of captive-bred Louisiana 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at that modeled the effects of the southern pinesnakes released into the wild since 50 CFR part 424, set forth the pine beetle (Dendroctonus frontalis) 2010 demonstrates that captive- procedures for adding species to the related to environmental variables, propagation efforts can be successful, Federal Lists of Endangered and southern pine beetle outbreak risk and and provides the opportunity for Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Under subsequent damage to southern pine reintroduction and augmentation to section 4(a)(1) of the Act, we may list a forests were substantially increased benefit the conservation of the species. Reintroduction, with improved success, species based on (A) The present or when considered for four separate threatened destruction, modification, or climate change scenarios (Gan 2004, p. done in multiple populations where appropriate habitat is available, has the curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 68). In the openings left in the beetle- overutilization for commercial, damaged pine forests, hardwoods may potential to eventually increase the number of individuals and populations, recreational, scientific, or educational become the canopy dominants, and purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) invasive vegetation may be more likely increase genetic heterozygosity, and alleviate presumed inbreeding the inadequacy of existing regulatory to colonize (Waldrop 2010, p. 4; depression in the populations, making mechanisms; or (E) other natural or Coleman et al. 2008, pp. 1409–1410), them more resistant to threats described manmade factors affecting its continued both of which can decrease the amount for Factor E. existence. We have carefully assessed of herbaceous vegetation that the As outlined in the CCA, the U.S. the best scientific and commercial Louisiana pinesnake’s primary prey Army has committed to avoiding the use information available regarding the past, (Baird’s pocket gopher) depends upon of erosion-control blankets, and USFS is present, and future threats to the for food. However, the threat of future committed to trying to locate ATV Louisiana pinesnake. Threats to the six increased risk of southern pine beetle routes outside of the boundaries of known remaining Louisiana pinesnake infestation since Gan (2004, p. 68) has Louisiana pinesnake occupied habitat. populations exist primarily from: (1) so far not been realized in the southeast Additionally, some improved roads on Historical and continuing habitat loss generally or in Louisiana and Texas National Forests are also closed to the and fragmentation (Factor A) primarily specifically (Asaro et al. 2017, p. 341, public during certain times of the year through land-use changes or 343). In fact, the annual number of (e.g., September to February at ANF degradation caused by fire suppression; counties in southern pine beetle [U.S. Forest Service 2015, entire]), and (2) synergistic effects from mortality outbreak status has actually decreased which should reduce the number of caused by vehicle strikes and by in Louisiana and Texas since a recent pinesnakes potentially killed by vehicle predators acting on vulnerable, reduced peak around 1986 (Asaro et al. 2017, p. traffic during those times. populations (Factor E and Factor C). We 341–347). In summary, a variety of natural or did not find that the Louisiana We consider the effects of increased manmade factors, alone and in pinesnake was impacted by temperatures, decreased precipitation, combination with other factors, overutilization (Factor B). While there and increased insect impacts on the currently threaten the Louisiana are regulatory mechanisms in place that Louisiana pinesnake and its habitat due pinesnake. Fire suppression has been may benefit the Louisiana pinesnake, to climate change to be a potential threat considered a primary reason for the existing regulatory mechanisms did in the future; however, because of the continuing degradation of the pine not reduce the impact of the stressors to uncertainty of the rate, scale, and forests in Louisiana and Texas. Roads the point that the species is not in location of impacts due to climate and rights-of-way, and fragmented danger of extinction (Factor D). effects, climate change is not currently habitat, isolate populations beyond the Portions of habitat occupied by two considered a threat to the species. dispersal range of the species. Mortality Louisiana pinesnake populations on caused by vehicle strikes is a threat private land are currently being Conservation Efforts To Reduce Threats because there are many roads bisecting managed beneficially for the species Under Factor E Louisiana pinesnake habitat, and the (some through formal agreements with Efforts to reduce Factor E threats remaining populations appear to be the Service), and conservation efforts on would have to address increasing the small and declining. The species’ small Federal lands, such as KNF and ANF, resiliency of individual populations by clutch size may limit its ability to and U.S. Army lands at Fort Polk and increasing abundance and decreasing effectively counteract mortality. Other Peason Ridge through a CCA in mortality, or preferably both. Currently, potential threats to Louisiana existence since 2003, have been efforts are underway to reduce at least pinesnakes include SFD, erosion-control extensive and successful in restoring some types of mortality and to study the blankets, insect and invasive vegetation suitable Louisiana pinesnake habitat. potential of increasing the number of effects on habitat, and malicious killing However, the lack of a definitive wild Louisiana pinesnakes via by humans. Overall, the threats under positive response by the species’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 14979

populations indicates that habitat assume that these populations will Based on a review of the biology of restoration may take longer than benefit from improved habitat the species, the threats acting on it, and expected to increase snake abundance, management over time. its population trends, the foreseeable especially when they are subjected to The Louisiana pinesnake captive- future used in this determination is negative effects associated with small breeding population provides some approximately 30 to 40 years. This populations of animals (i.e., reduced capability for population augmentation timeframe encompasses 3 to 4 heterozygosity, inbreeding depression) or re-establishing populations in areas generations of the Louisiana pinesnake and mortality pressure from vehicles with suitable habitat, while maintaining and is a time period where we can and predators. an assurance colony for wild Louisiana reliably detect population and species A captive-breeding population of pinesnake populations through the SSP. level responses to threats and Louisiana pinesnakes is being managed The multiple current populations conservation actions acting on the under an SSP and has provided 91 combined with habitat management and snake. Any predictions of threats acting captive-bred Louisiana pinesnakes for restoration as well as captive-breeding on the species beyond 30 to 40 years release into the wild at the Catahoula decrease the current risk of extinction to into the future, would be speculative Ranger District of the KNF (see the species. The Louisiana pinesnake is and beyond the foreseeable future for Conservation Efforts above). This not in danger of extinction now, but we the species. reintroduction feasibility effort has expect that into the future threats will We rely on the experience of 26 years shown that at least one of the 91 continue to impact the species such that of trapping data for the species, captive-bred Louisiana pinesnakes has the species is likely to become activities that threaten its continued survived for at least 4 years after release endangered in the foreseeable future. viability, as well as conservation actions in suitable, beneficially managed The ‘‘foreseeable future’’ extends only intended to benefit the snake. During habitat. so far as the Services can reasonably that timeframe, trap success has been The Act defines an endangered rely on predictions about the future in relatively lower for the populations in species as any species that is ‘‘in danger making determinations about the future Texas compared to those in Louisiana. of extinction throughout all or a Within the Scrappin’ Valley EOHA, conservation status of the species. Those significant portion of its range’’ and a there have been no trap captures or predictions can be in the form of threatened species as any species ‘‘that other occurrences since 2009, and extrapolation of population or threat is likely to become endangered within the Angelina EOHA, the most trends, analysis of how threats will throughout all or a significant portion of recent unique individual trap capture affect the status of the species, or its range within the foreseeable future.’’ was in 2007, however, a previously assessment of future events that will We find that the Louisiana pinesnake captured snake was recaptured in 2012. have a significant new impact on the meets the definition of a threatened During that same time period, within species. The foreseeable future species based on the severity and Louisiana, the two populations within described here uses the best available immediacy of threats currently the Bienville and Fort Polk EOHAs have impacting all populations of the species scientific data and takes into account shown relatively consistent captures throughout all of its range. The species’ considerations such as the species’ life over time including captures in 2017. overall range has been significantly history characteristics, threat projection The last snake captured within the reduced, populations have apparently time frames, and environmental Kisatchie EOHA was in 2007, and been extirpated, and the remaining variability such as typical forest harvest within the Peason Ridge EOHA, six habitat (on private lands) and rotation, forest and natural resource occurrence records exist between 2003 populations are threatened by factors management plans, and current and 2013, with the last in 2013. Based acting in combination to reduce the conservation efforts, which may affect on the available data, it appears that the overall viability of the species. the reliability of projections. We also Texas populations and the Kisatchie We find that the Louisiana pinesnake considered the time frames applicable to population in Louisiana will likely does not meet the definition of an the relevant threats and to the species’ become unoccupied in 7 years or less, endangered species. There are currently likely responses to those threats in view unless occurrences are documented in multiple known extant populations of its life history characteristics. The those areas before then. within the species’ range. There are foreseeable future for a particular status In addition, open-canopy forest currently extensive habitat restoration determination extends only so far as fragmentation and modification, due to and management efforts to benefit the predictions about the future are reliable. conversion to other forest (closed species ongoing within occupied areas In cases where the available data canopy plantations) or non-forest land currently being managed by the USFS allow for quantitative modelling or uses, or due to the lack of active and U.S. Army, as well as similar efforts projections, the time horizon for such management (e.g., prescribed fire, ongoing (albeit generally smaller and to analyses does not necessarily dictate thinning, mid- and understory woody a lesser extent) within occupied areas what constitutes the ‘‘foreseeable vegetation control) to maintain healthy currently being managed on private future’’ or set the specific threshold for open forest conditions, is the driving lands; and reintroduction of captive- determining when a species may be in threat moving into the foreseeable bred animals into the wild, which has danger of extinction. Rather, the future. Typical working forest rotation shown some limited success (see foreseeable future can only extend as far in the range of the species ranges Catahoula Reintroduction Feasibility as the Service can reasonably explain between 20 to 30 years. There are EOHA, above). reliance on the available data to currently extensive habitat restoration Extensive habitat restoration efforts formulate a reliable prediction and and management efforts to benefit the have occurred on USFS and U.S. Army avoid reliance on assumption, species ongoing within occupied areas lands where the species occurs, and speculation, or preconception. currently being managed by the USFS those populations are no longer Regardless of the type of data available and U.S. Army, and current USFS land threatened by continuing habitat loss. underlying the Service’s analysis, the and resource management plans as well While it is difficult to show an increase key to any analysis is a clear articulation as integrated natural resources in population size with a species that is of the facts, the rationale, and management plans implemented by Fort so difficult to detect, it is reasonable to conclusions regarding foreseeability. Polk range between 5 to 15 years.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 14980 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

Similar efforts are also ongoing (albeit throughout all or a significant portion of they no longer need the protective generally smaller and to a lesser extent) its range. Because we have determined measures of the Act. Subsection 4(f) of within occupied areas currently being that the Louisiana pinesnake is the Act requires the Service to develop managed on private lands; several threatened throughout all of its range, and implement recovery plans for the relatively small areas are being managed no portion of its range can be conservation of endangered and under voluntary agreements (minimum ‘‘significant’’ for purposes of the threatened species. The recovery of 10 years) with the Service through the definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and planning process involves the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program, ‘‘threatened species.’’ See the Final identification of actions that are or through safe harbor agreements Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase necessary to halt or reverse the species’ (maximum of 99 years) managed by the ‘‘Significant Portion of Its Range’’ in the decline by addressing the threats to its States for the red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered Species Act’s Definitions of survival and recovery. The goal of this (which generally provide suitable ‘‘Endangered Species’’ and ‘‘Threatened process is to restore listed species to a habitat conditions). In addition, in 2017, Species’’ (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). point where they are secure, self- the Service developed a conference Critical Habitat sustaining, and functioning components opinion for NRCS’s Working Lands for of their ecosystems. Wildlife program for the Louisiana Section 3(5)(A) of the Act defines Recovery planning includes the pinesnake. This conference opinion is critical habitat as: (i) The specific areas development of a recovery outline valid for 30 years. within the geographical area occupied within 30 days of when the species is The Louisiana pinesnake is likely to by the species, at the time it is listed on listed and preparation of a draft and which are found those physical or become endangered in the foreseeable final recovery plan. The recovery biological features (I) essential to the future because the remaining outline guides the immediate conservation of the species and (II) populations are small, isolated, subject implementation of urgent recovery which may require special management to ongoing natural and unnatural actions and describes the process to be considerations or protection; and (ii) mortality pressure, and to date have not used to develop a recovery plan. specific areas outside the geographical shown an observable, positive response Revisions of the plan may be done to area occupied by the species at the time to habitat restoration. The species address continuing or new threats to the it is listed upon a determination by the currently has almost no potential for species, as new substantive information Secretary that such areas are essential natural recolonization between becomes available. The recovery plan for the conservation of the species. populations, and multiple significantly identifies site-specific management affected populations may be unable to Section 4(a)(3) of the Act and actions that set a trigger for review of recover even with the restoration of implementing regulations (50 CFR the five factors that control whether a appropriate habitat. Half (three) of the 424.12) require that we designate species remains endangered or may be known natural extant populations (i.e., critical habitat at the time a species is downlisted or delisted, and methods for Kisatchie, Scrappin’ Valley, and determined to be an endangered or monitoring recovery progress. Recovery Angelina EOHAs) have had no captures threatened species, to the maximum plans also establish a framework for in several years and it is likely that their extent prudent and determinable. In the agencies to coordinate their recovery EOHAs will be considered unoccupied proposed listing rule (81 FR 69454, efforts and provide estimates of the cost in 7 years or less based on our EOHA October 6, 2016), we determined that of implementing recovery tasks. determination criteria, unless designation of critical habitat was Recovery teams (composed of species occurrences are documented in those prudent but not determinable because areas before then. specific information needed to analyze experts, Federal and State agencies, Future conservation of the two extant the impacts of designation was lacking. nongovernmental organizations, and populations on private lands, which can We are still in the process of obtaining stakeholders) are often established to change ownership and management this information. develop recovery plans. When practice, is uncertain. Portions of the completed, the recovery outline, draft Available Conservation Measures occupied habitat on these private lands recovery plan, and final recovery plan are being managed beneficially for Conservation measures provided to will be available on our website (http:// Louisiana pinesnake, but there is no species listed as endangered or www.fws.gov/endangered) or from our permanent commitment from the threatened species under the Act Louisiana Ecological Services Field current landowners to continue such include recognition, recovery actions, Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION efforts; the other portions with suitable requirements for Federal protection, and CONTACT). or preferable soils are generally prohibitions against certain practices. Implementation of recovery actions unsuitable habitat because of the current Recognition through listing results in generally requires the participation of a vegetation structure. The Scrappin’ public awareness and conservation by broad range of partners, including other Valley population EOHA is at risk of Federal, State, Tribal, and local Federal agencies, States, Tribal, being considered unoccupied, as agencies, private organizations, and nongovernmental organizations, discussed immediately above. The individuals. The Act encourages businesses, and private landowners. Bienville population is one of the two cooperation with the States and requires Examples of recovery actions include populations believed to be the largest; that recovery actions be carried out for habitat restoration (e.g., restoration of should the ownership of those lands all listed species. The protection native vegetation), research, captive change or the commitment to current required by Federal agencies and the propagation and reintroduction, and habitat management efforts on lands prohibitions against certain activities outreach and education. The recovery of supporting the population cease, it is are discussed, in part, below. many listed species cannot be likely that this population would The primary purpose of the Act is the accomplished solely on Federal lands decline and could become extirpated conservation of endangered and because their range may occur primarily within the foreseeable future. threatened species and the ecosystems or solely on non-Federal lands. To Under the Act and our implementing upon which they depend. The ultimate achieve recovery of these species regulations, a species may warrant goal of such conservation efforts is the requires cooperative conservation efforts listing if it is endangered or threatened recovery of these listed species, so that on private, State, and Tribal lands.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 14981

Following publication of this final in this issue of the Federal Register in Questions regarding whether specific listing rule, funding for recovery actions Proposed Rules. We may issue permits activities would constitute a violation of will be available from a variety of to carry out otherwise prohibited section 9 of the Act should be directed sources, including Federal budgets, activities involving threatened wildlife to the Louisiana Ecological Services State programs, and cost share grants for under certain circumstances. Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION non-Federal landowners, the academic Regulations governing permits are CONTACT). community, and nongovernmental codified at 50 CFR 17.32. With regard to organizations. In addition, pursuant to threatened wildlife, a permit may be Required Determinations section 6 of the Act, the States of issued for the following purposes: For National Environmental Policy Act Louisiana and Texas will be eligible for scientific purposes, to enhance the Federal funds to implement propagation or survival of the species, We have determined that management actions that promote the and for incidental take in connection environmental assessments and protection or recovery of the Louisiana with otherwise lawful activities. There environmental impact statements, as pinesnake. Information on our grant are also certain statutory exemptions defined under the authority of the programs that are available to aid from the prohibitions, which are found National Environmental Policy Act species recovery can be found at: http:// in sections 9 and 10 of the Act. (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not www.fws.gov/grants. It is our policy, as published in the be prepared in connection with listing Please let us know if you are Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR a species as an endangered or interested in participating in recovery 34272), to identify to the maximum threatened species under the efforts for the Louisiana pinesnake. extent practicable at the time a species Endangered Species Act. We published Additionally, we invite you to submit is listed, those activities that would or a notice outlining our reasons for this any new information on this species would not constitute a violation of determination in the Federal Register whenever it becomes available and any section 9 of the Act. The intent of this on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). information you may have for recovery policy is to increase public awareness of planning purposes (see FOR FURTHER the effect of a final listing on proposed Government-to-Government INFORMATION CONTACT). and ongoing activities within the range Relationship With Tribes Section 7(a) of the Act requires of a listed species. Based on the best Federal agencies to evaluate their In accordance with the President’s available information, the following memorandum of April 29, 1994 actions with respect to any species that activities may potentially result in a is listed as an endangered or threatened (Government-to-Government Relations violation of section 9 the Act; this list species and with respect to its critical with Native American Tribal is not comprehensive: habitat, if any is designated. Regulations Governments; 59 FR 22951), Executive (1) Unauthorized collecting, handling, implementing this interagency Order 13175 (Consultation and possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, cooperation provision of the Act are Coordination With Indian Tribal or transporting of the Louisiana codified at 50 CFR part 402. Section Governments), and the Department of pinesnake, including interstate 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal the Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we agencies to ensure that activities they transportation across State lines and readily acknowledge our responsibility authorize, fund, or carry out are not import or export across international to communicate meaningfully with likely to jeopardize the continued boundaries, except for properly recognized Federal Tribes on a existence of any endangered or documented antique specimens of these government-to-government basis. In threatened species or destroy or taxa at least 100 years old, as defined by accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 adversely modify its critical habitat. If a section 10(h)(1) of the Act. of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Federal action may affect a listed (2) Introduction of nonnative animal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust species or its critical habitat, the species that compete with or prey upon Responsibilities, and the Endangered responsible Federal agency must enter the Louisiana pinesnake. Species Act), we readily acknowledge into consultation with the Service. (3) Introduction of invasive plant our responsibilities to work directly Federal agency actions within the species that contribute to the with tribes in developing programs for species’ habitat that may require degradation of the natural habitat of the healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Louisiana pinesnake. conference or consultation or both as tribal lands are not subject to the same described in the preceding paragraph (4) Unauthorized destruction or controls as Federal public lands, to include management and any other modification of occupied Louisiana remain sensitive to Indian culture, and pinesnake habitat that results in damage landscape-altering activities on Federal to make information available to tribes. to or alteration of desirable herbaceous lands administered by the U.S. Forest No tribal lands or other interests are vegetation or the destruction of Baird’s Service and the U.S. Department of affected by the rule. Defense. pocket gopher burrow systems used as Under section 4(d) of the Act, the refugia by the Louisiana pinesnake, or References Cited Service has discretion to issue that impairs in other ways the species’ regulations that we find necessary and essential behaviors such as breeding, A complete list of references cited in advisable to provide for the feeding, or sheltering. this rulemaking is available on the conservation of threatened wildlife. We (5) Unauthorized use of insecticides internet at http://www.regulations.gov may also prohibit by regulation with and rodenticides that could impact in Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2016–0121 respect to threatened wildlife any act small mammal prey populations, and upon request from the Louisiana prohibited by section 9(a)(1) of the Act through either unintended or direct Ecological Services Field Office (see FOR for endangered wildlife. For the impacts within habitat occupied by FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Louisiana pinesnake, the Service is Louisiana pinesnakes. Authors proposing a section 4(d) rule that is (6) Unauthorized actions that would tailored to the specific threats and result in the destruction of eggs or cause The primary authors of this final rule conservation needs of this species. The mortality or injury to hatchling, are the staff members of the Louisiana proposed rule may be found elsewhere juvenile, or adult Louisiana pinesnakes. Ecological Services Field Office.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2 14982 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 67 / Friday, April 6, 2018 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 PART 17—ENDANGERED AND alphabetical order under REPTILES to Endangered and threatened species, THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS the List of Endangered and Threatened Exports, Imports, Reporting and Wildlife to read as follows: ■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 recordkeeping requirements, continues to read as follows: § 17.11 Endangered and threatened Transportation. wildlife. Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– Regulation Promulgation 1544; and 4201–4245; unless otherwise * * * * * Accordingly, we amend part 17, noted. (h) * * * subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by adding an Code of Federal Regulations, as follows: entry for ‘‘Pinesnake, Louisiana’’ in

Common name Scientific name Where listed Status Listing citations and applicable rules

******* REPTILES

******* Pinesnake, Louisiana ..... Pituophis ruthveni ...... Wherever found ...... T 83 FR [insert Federal Register page where the document begins], April 6, 2018.

*******

* * * * * Dated: March 12, 2018. James W. Kurth Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, exercising the authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2018–07107 Filed 4–5–18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:48 Apr 05, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\06APR2.SGM 06APR2 daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES2