Federal Register/Vol. 81, No. 194

69454 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

date for a period no greater than 10 substantial number of small entities DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR years from the final determination, under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 considering the severity of U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Fish and Wildlife Service nonattainment and the availability and • Does not contain any unfunded feasibility of pollution control measures. 50 CFR Part 17 mandate or significantly or uniquely Lastly, section 179(d) requires that the affect small governments, as described [Docket No. FWS–R4–ES–2016–0121; state submit the required SIP revision 4500030113] within 12 months after the applicable in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act attainment date. In this case, if the EPA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); RIN 1018–BB46 finalizes the proposed rule, then the • Does not have Federalism Endangered and Threatened Wildlife State of California will be required to implications as specified in Executive and Plants; Threatened Species Status submit a SIP revision that complies with Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, for Louisiana Pinesnake sections 179(d) and 189(d) within 12 1999); months of December 31, 2015, i.e., by • Is not an economically significant AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, December 31, 2016. regulatory action based on health or Interior. III. Proposed Action and Request for safety risks subject to Executive Order ACTION: Proposed rule. Public Comment 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Under CAA sections 179(c)(1) and • Is not a significant regulatory action Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 188(b)(2), the EPA proposes to subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR list the Louisiana pinesnake (Pituophis determine that the San Joaquin Valley 28355, May 22, 2001); ruthveni), a reptile species from ‘‘Serious’’ PM2.5 nonattainment area has • Is not subject to requirements of Louisiana and Texas, as a threatened failed to attain the 1997 annual and 24- section 12(d) of the National species under the Endangered Species hour PM standards by the applicable 2.5 Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (Act). If we finalize this rule as attainment date of December 31, 2015. Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because proposed, it would extend the Act’s If finalized, the State of California will protections to this species. be required under CAA sections 179(d) application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and DATES: We will accept comments and 189(d) to submit a revision to the received or postmarked on or before • SIP for the San Joaquin Valley that, Does not provide the EPA with the December 5, 2016. Comments submitted among other elements, demonstrates discretionary authority to address electronically using the Federal expeditious attainment of the standards disproportionate human health or eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, within the time period provided under environmental effects with practical, below) must be received by 11:59 p.m. CAA section 179(d) and that provides appropriate, and legally permissible Eastern Time on the closing date. We for annual reduction in the emissions of methods under Executive Order 12898 must receive requests for public PM2.5 or a PM2.5 plan precursor (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). hearings, in writing, at the address pollutant within the area of not less In addition, this proposed action does shown in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION than five percent until attainment. The CONTACT by November 21, 2016. SIP revision required under CAA not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 ADDRESSES: You may submit comments sections 179(d) and 189(d) would be by one of the following methods: due for submittal to the EPA no later FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP obligations discussed herein do (1) Electronically: Go to the Federal than December 31, 2016. eRulemaking Portal: http:// The EPA is soliciting public not apply to Indian Tribes and thus this www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, comments on the issues discussed in proposed action will not impose enter FWS–R4–ES–2016–0121, which is this document. We will accept substantial direct costs on Tribal the docket number for this rulemaking. comments from the public on this governments or preempt Tribal law. Then, click on the Search button. On the proposal for the next 30 days. We will Nonetheless, the EPA has notified the resulting page, in the Search panel on consider these comments before taking Tribes within the San Joaquin Valley the left side of the screen, under the final action. PM2.5 nonattainment area of the Document Type heading, click on the IV. Statutory and Executive Order proposed action. Proposed Rules link to locate this Reviews List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 document. You may submit a comment This proposed action in and of itself by clicking on ‘‘Comment Now!’’ establishes no new requirements; it Environmental protection, Air (2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail merely documents that air quality in the pollution control, Ammonia, or hand-delivery to: Public Comments San Joaquin Valley did not meet the Incorporation by reference, Processing, Attn: FWS–R4–ES–2016– Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 0121, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1997 PM2.5 standards by the CAA deadline. For that reason, this proposed dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls action: and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur Church, VA 22041–3803. • Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory oxides, Volatile organic compounds. We request that you send comments only by the methods described above. action’’ subject to review by the Office Dated: September 23, 2016. of Management and Budget under We will post all comments on http:// Alexis Strauss, Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, www.regulations.gov. This generally October 4, 1993); Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. means that we will post any personal • Does not impose an information [FR Doc. 2016–24084 Filed 10–5–16; 8:45 am] information you provide us (see collection burden under the provisions BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Information Requested, below, for more of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 information). U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad • Is certified as not having a S. Rieck, Acting Field Supervisor, U.S. significant economic impact on a Fish and Wildlife Service, Louisiana

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM 06OCP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 69455

Ecological Services Office, 646 isolated, genetically compromised for the conservation of the Louisiana Cajundome Blvd., Suite 400, Lafayette, extant populations to mortality from pinesnake. LA; telephone 337–291–3101; facsimile vehicle strikes and from predators Please include sufficient information 337–291–3139. Persons who use a (Factors C and E). with your submission (such as scientific telecommunications device for the deaf We will seek peer review. We will seek journal articles or other publications) to (TDD) may call the Federal Information comments from independent specialists allow us to verify any scientific or Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. to ensure that our designation is based commercial information you include. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: on scientifically sound data, Please note that submissions merely assumptions, and analyses. We will stating support for or opposition to the Executive Summary invite these peer reviewers to comment action under consideration without Why we need to publish a rule. Under on this listing proposal. providing supporting information, the Act, if we determine that a species although noted, will not be considered is an endangered or threatened species Information Requested in making a determination, as section throughout all or a significant portion of Public Comments 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that its range, we are required to promptly determinations as to whether any We intend that any final action publish a proposed rule in the Federal species is an endangered or threatened Register and make a determination on resulting from this proposed rule will be species must be made ‘‘solely on the our proposal within 1 year. Critical based on the best scientific and basis of the best scientific and habitat shall be designated, to the commercial data available and be as commercial data available.’’ maximum extent prudent and accurate and as effective as possible. You may submit your comments and determinable, for any species Therefore, we request comments or materials concerning this proposed rule determined to be an endangered or information from other concerned by one of the methods listed in threatened species under the Act. governmental agencies, Native ADDRESSES. We request that you send Listing a species as an endangered or American tribes, the scientific comments only by the methods threatened species and designations of community, industry, or any other described in ADDRESSES. critical habitat can only be completed interested parties concerning this If you submit information via http:// by issuing a rule. We have determined proposed rule. We particularly seek www.regulations.gov, your entire that designating critical habitat for the comments concerning: submission—including any personal Louisiana pinesnake is prudent, but not (1) The Louisiana pinesnake’s biology, identifying information—will be posted determinable at this time, because the range, and population trends, including: on the Web site. If your submission is specific information sufficient to (a) Biological or ecological made via a hardcopy that includes perform the required analysis of the requirements of the species, including personal identifying information, you impacts of the designation is currently habitat requirements for feeding, may request at the top of your document lacking, such as information on areas to breeding, and sheltering; that we withhold this information from be proposed for designation and the (b) Genetics and taxonomy; public review. However, we cannot potential economic impacts associated (c) Historical and current range, guarantee that we will be able to do so. with designation of these areas. including distribution patterns; We will post all hardcopy submissions This rule proposes to list the (d) Historical and current population on http://www.regulations.gov. Louisiana pinesnake as a threatened levels, and current and projected trends; Comments and materials we receive, species. The Louisiana pinesnake is a and as well as supporting documentation we candidate species for which we have on (e) Past and ongoing conservation used in preparing this proposed rule, file sufficient information on biological measures for the species, its habitat, or will be available for public inspection vulnerability and threats to support both. on http://www.regulations.gov, or by preparation of a listing proposal, but for (2) Factors that may affect the appointment, during normal business which development of a listing rule had continued existence of the species, hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife been, until now, precluded by other which may include habitat modification Service, Louisiana Ecological Services higher priority listing activities. or destruction, overutilization, disease, Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION The basis for our action. Under the predation, the inadequacy of existing CONTACT). Act, we may determine that a species is regulatory mechanisms, or other natural Because we will consider all an endangered or threatened species or manmade factors. comments and information we receive based on any of five factors: (A) The (3) Biological, commercial trade, or during the comment period, our final present or threatened destruction, other relevant data concerning any determination may differ from this modification, or curtailment of its threats (or lack thereof) to this species proposal. habitat or range; (B) overutilization for and existing regulations that may be commercial, recreational, scientific, or addressing those threats. Public Hearing educational purposes; (C) disease or (4) Additional information concerning Section 4(b)(5) of the Act provides for predation; (D) the inadequacy of the historical and current status, range, one or more public hearings on this existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) distribution, and population size of this proposal, if requested. Requests must be other natural or manmade factors species, including the locations of any received by the date specified in DATES. affecting its continued existence. We additional populations of this species. Such requests must be sent to the have determined that the Louisiana (5) Information on activities that address shown in FOR FURTHER pinesnake is threatened primarily might warrant being exempted under INFORMATION CONTACT. We will schedule because of the past and continuing loss, section 4(d) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 public hearings on this proposal, if any degradation, and fragmentation of et seq.). The Service is considering are requested, and announce the dates, habitat in association with incompatible proposing such measures before the times, and places of those hearings, as silviculture, fire suppression, road and final listing determination is published, well as how to obtain reasonable right-of-way construction, and and will evaluate ideas provided by the accommodations, in the Federal urbanization (Factor A), and the public in considering whether such Register and local newspapers at least magnified vulnerability of all the small, exemptions are necessary and advisable 15 days before the hearing.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM 06OCP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 69456 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Peer Review CNORs through 2005 (67 FR 40657, June powerful constricting snakes with In accordance with our joint policy on 13, 2002; 69 FR 24876, May 4, 2004; 70 keeled scales, a single anal plate (the peer review published in the Federal FR 24870, May 11, 2005). In 2006, we scale covering the cloaca), and Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), changed the Louisiana pinesnake’s LPN disproportionately small heads (Conant we are seeking the expert opinions of to 8, based on threats of moderate to low and Collins 1991, pp. 201–202). Their six appropriate and independent magnitude that were imminent (71 FR snouts are pointed, and they have a specialists regarding this proposed rule. 53756; September 12, 2006). In 2007, we large rostral (tip of the snout) scale, both presumably contributing to the snakes The purpose of peer review is to ensure again changed the Louisiana good burrowing ability. The Louisiana that our listing determination is based pinesnake’s LPN, reassigning it an LPN pinesnake (P. ruthveni) has a buff to on scientifically sound data, of 5, based on non-imminent, high- yellowish background color with dark assumptions, and analyses. The peer magnitude threats (72 FR 69034; brown to russet dorsal blotches covering reviewers have expertise in Louisiana December 6, 2007). The Louisiana its total length (Vandeventer and Young pinesnake biology, habitat, physical or pinesnake was included with an LPN of 1989, p. 35; Conant and Collins 1991, p. biological factors, etc., and they are 5 in our subsequent annual CNORs 203). The belly of the Louisiana currently reviewing the status through 2015 (73 FR 75176, December pinesnake is unmarked or boldly information in the proposed rule, which 10, 2008; 74 FR 57804, November 9, patterned with black markings. It is will inform our determination. We 2009; 75 FR 69222, November 10, 2010; 76 FR 66370, October 26, 2011; 77 FR variable in both coloration and pattern, invite comment from the peer reviewers but a characteristic feature is that the during this public comment period. 69994, November 21, 2012; 78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013; 79 FR body markings on its back are always Previous Federal Actions 72450, December 5, 2014; 80 FR 80584, conspicuously different at opposite ends of its body. Blotches run together near We identified the Louisiana December 24, 2015). the head, often obscuring the pinesnake (as Pituophis melanoleucus In August 2000, the Service received background color, and then become ruthveni) as a Category 2 candidate a petition to list the Louisiana more separate and well-defined towards species in the December 30, 1982, pinesnake as endangered under the Act. the tail. Typically, there are no Review of Vertebrate Wildlife for Listing No new information was provided in noticeable head markings, although as Endangered or Threatened Species the petition, and we had already found rarely a light bar or stripe may occur (47 FR 58454). Category 2 candidates the species warranted listing, so no behind the eye. The length of adult were defined as taxa for which we had further action was taken on the petition. On May 10, 2011, the Service Louisiana pinesnakes ranges from 48 to information that proposed listing was 56 inches (in) (122 to 142 centimeters possibly appropriate, but for which announced a work plan to restore biological priorities and certainty to the (cm)) (Conant and Collins 1991, p. 203). substantial data on biological The largest reported specimen was 5.8 vulnerability and threats were not Service’s listing process. As part of an agreement with one of the agency’s most feet (ft) (178 cm) long (Davis 1971, p. 1; available to support a proposed rule at Conant and Collins 1991, p. 203). the time. The species remained so frequent plaintiffs, the Service filed the work plan with the U.S. District Court The Louisiana pinesnake is a member designated in subsequent annual of the Class Reptilia, Order Squamata, candidate notices of review (CNORs) (50 for the District of Columbia. The work plan enabled the Service to, over a Suborder Serpentes, and Family FR 37958, September 18, 1985; 54 FR Colubridae. Stull (1929, pp. 2–3) 554, January 6, 1989; 56 FR 58804, period of 6 years, systematically review and address the needs of more than 250 formally described the Louisiana November 21, 1991; 59 FR 58982, pinesnake as a pinesnake subspecies (P. November 15, 1994). In the February 28, species listed within the 2010 CNOR, including the Louisiana pinesnake, to melanoleucus ruthveni) based on two 1996, CNOR (61 FR 7596), we specimens taken in Rapides Parish, discontinued the designation of determine if these species should be added to the Federal Lists of Louisiana. Reichling (1995, p. 192) Category 2 species as candidates; reassessed this snake’s taxonomic status therefore, the Louisiana pinesnake was Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. This work plan enabled the and concluded that the Louisiana no longer a candidate species. pinesnake was geographically isolated We added the Louisiana pinesnake (as Service to again prioritize its workload based on the needs of candidate species, and phenotypically distinct, and thus a Pituophis melanoleucus) to the valid evolutionary species. The candidate list in 1999 (64 FR 57534, while also providing State wildlife agencies, stakeholders, and other Louisiana pinesnake has subsequently October 25, 1999). Currently, candidate been accepted as a full species, P. species are defined as plants and partners with clarity and certainty about when listing determinations will be ruthveni (Crother 2000, p. 69; animals for which the Service has Rodriguez-Robles and Jesus-Escobar made. On July 12, 2011, the Service sufficient information on their 2000, p. 46; Collins and Taggert 2002, p. reached an agreement with another biological status and threats to propose 33). We have carefully reviewed this frequent plaintiff group and further them as endangered or threatened under taxonomic research for the Louisiana strengthened the work plan, which the Act, but for which development of pinesnake and conclude that the species allowed the agency to focus its a listing rule is precluded by other is a valid taxon. higher priority listing actions. The resources on the species most in need of Louisiana pinesnake was assigned a protection under the Act. These Habitat listing priority number (LPN) of 5, based agreements were approved on Louisiana pinesnakes are known from on the immediacy and magnitude of September 9, 2011. Therefore, the and associated with a disjunct portion threats to this species. timing of this proposed listing is, in of the historic longleaf-dominated In the October 30, 2001, CNOR (66 FR part, an outcome of the work plan. (hereafter, ‘‘longleaf’’) pine (Pinus 54808), we recognized the Louisiana Background palustris) ecosystem that existed in pinesnake as Pituophis ruthveni and west-central Louisiana and east Texas retained an LPN of 5 for the species. The Species Description and Taxonomy (Reichling 1995, p. 186). Longleaf pine Louisiana pinesnake was included with Pinesnakes (genus Pituophis) are forests (which are dominated by an LPN of 5 in our subsequent annual large, short-tailed, non-venomous, longleaf, but may also contain other

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM 06OCP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 69457

overstory species such as loblolly and burrow systems (Ealy et al. 2004, p. 389; Louisiana, Himes et al. (2006, p. 107) shortleaf pine and sparse hardwoods) Himes et al. 2006, p. 107). In Louisiana, recorded wild-caught (i.e., not captive- have the most species-rich habitat selection by Louisiana bred) Louisiana pinesnakes (nine adults herpetofaunal community compared to pinesnakes seems to be determined by and one juvenile) most frequently in other similarly sized and located pine the abundance and distribution of pine forests (56 percent), followed by forest habitat in North America, and pocket gophers and their burrow pine plantation (23 percent) and clear- harbor more species that are specialists systems (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. cuts (9 percent). It should be noted, of that habitat (Guyer and Bailey 1993, 117). Active Louisiana pinesnakes however, that across all sites, snakes p. 142). Early accounts of Louisiana occasionally use debris, logs, and low appeared to select areas with few large pinesnake collections indicate a strong vegetation as temporary surface shelters trees (7 to 9 trees per plot) that were affinity for longleaf pine habitat, as most (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117; approximately 0.1 ac (0.04 ha) in size, reports indicated the snakes were Himes 1998, p. 26; Ealy et al. 2004, p. resulting in less canopy closure and collected within or adjacent to longleaf 386); however, most Louisiana more light penetration, which supports pine stands (Fugler 1955, p. 24; Conant pinesnakes disturbed on the surface increased understory vegetation growth 1956, pp. 5, 19, 24; Walker 1965, p. 160; retreat to nearby burrows (Rudolph and and therefore more pocket gophers Thomas et al 1976, p. 253; Jennings and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117). Louisiana (Himes et al. 2006, pp. 108–110; 113) Fritts 1983, p. 3; Wright and Wright pinesnakes also minimally use decayed regardless of the type of wooded land. 1994, pp. 622, 623; Jordan 1998, p. 11). or burned stumps, or nine-banded In a 2-year (2004–2005) trapping study The vast majority of natural longleaf armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) of three locations (two were mixed long pine habitat has been lost or degraded burrows as underground refugia (Ealy et leaf/loblolly pine stands being managed due to conversion to extensive pine al. 2004, p. 389). specifically for Louisiana pinesnake plantations and suppression of the Baird’s pocket gophers appear to habitat, and one was a loblolly pine historic fire regime. As a result, current prefer well-drained, sandy soils with plantation managed for fiber tree Louisiana pinesnake habitat generally low clay content in the topsoil (Davis et production), Reichling et al. (2008, p. 4) consists of sandy, well-drained soils in al. 1938, p. 414). Whether by choice for found the same number of Louisiana open canopy pine forest, which may burrowing efficiency or in pursuit of pinesnakes in the pine plantation (n=2) include species such as longleaf, Baird’s pocket gophers (or likely both), as one of the mixed pine stands shortleaf, slash, or loblolly pines with a Louisiana pinesnakes also occur most managed for Louisiana pinesnake (n=2); sparse midstory, and well-developed often in sandy soils (Wagner et al. 2014, however, of all the three trapping herbaceous ground cover dominated by p. 152). In Wagner et al.’s study, locations studied, the greatest number of grasses and forbs (Young and modelling of Louisiana pinesnake snakes was found in the second mixed Vandeventer 1988, p. 204; Rudolph and habitat revealed that in addition to pine stand managed for Louisiana Burgdorf 1997, p. 117). suitable forest structure and herbaceous pinesnake (n=8). In addition, the snakes Abundant ground-layer herbaceous vegetation, specific soil characteristics found in pine plantation conditions by vegetation is important for the Louisiana are an important determinant of Reichling et al. appeared thin or pinesnake’s primary prey, the Bairds Louisiana pinesnake inhabitance. emaciated (indicating they probably had pocket gopher (Geomys breviceps), Wagner et al. (2014, entire) developed a not fed recently), and were not which constitutes 75 percent of the Landscape-scaled Resource Selection recaptured in that habitat, which may Louisiana pinesnake’s estimated total Functions Model of Potential Louisiana have indicated they were moving prey biomass (Rudolph et al 2012, p. Pinesnake Habitat (LRSF-Model) using through these sites (Reichling et al. 243). Baird’s pocket gopher depends available Louisiana pinesnake location 2008, pp. 9, 14). Further trapping at the mostly on various plant parts of a data with county and parish soil survey same sites since the study has produced variety of herbaceous species (Pennoyer data as independent variables to more 17 and 9 more Louisiana pinesnakes for 1932, pp. 128–129; Sulentich et al. accurately identify the percentage of the first and second beneficially 1991, p. 3). Pocket gopher abundance is certain soil characteristics that were managed stands, respectively, and only associated with a low density of trees, selected from what was available in the 3 more for the plantation site (Pierce an open canopy, and a small amount of landscape, indicating preference. The 2015, unpub. data). woody vegetation cover, which allow snakes were found to prefer soils with greater sunlight and more herbaceous high sand content and a low water table Life History forage for pocket gophers (Himes 1998, (Wagner et al. 2014, p. 152). In a Louisiana pinesnakes appear to be p. 43; Melder and Cooper 2015, p. 75). separate modelling study, using most active March through May and Bairds pocket gophers also create the essentially the same dataset but a September through November burrow systems in which Louisiana different study method, Duran (2010, p. (especially November), and least active pinesnakes are most frequently found 11) also found that Louisiana December through February and during (Rudolph and Conner 1996, p. 2; pinesnakes prefer sandy, well-drained the summer (especially August) (Himes Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. 117; soils, confirming the validity of the 1998, p. 12). During the winter, Himes 1998, p. 42; Rudolph et al. 1998, LRSF-Model, originally proposed in Louisiana pinesnakes use Baird’s pocket p. 146; Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 62; 2009 (Wagner et al. 2009, entire). gopher burrows as hibernacula Himes et al. 2006, p. 107), and the The fire-climax park-like conditions (Rudolph et al. 2007 p. 561; Pierce et al. snakes use these burrow systems as of typical Louisiana pinesnake habitat 2014, p. 140). In a study conducted by nocturnal refugia and hibernacula, and are created and maintained by recurrent, Pierce et al. (2014, pp. 140, 142), the to escape from fire (Rudolph and low-intensity ground fires that occur species did not use burrows Burgdorf 1997, p. 117; Rudolph et al. approximately every 3 to 5 years. In the communally, and they did not exhibit 1998, p. 147; Ealy et al. 2004, p. 386; absence of recurrent fire, growth of fidelity to hibernacula sites in Rudolph et al. 2007 p. 561; Pierce et al. woody midstory species is increased, successive years. Louisiana pinesnakes 2014, p. 140). From 74 percent to greater and conditions supporting the Louisiana observed in east Texas appear to be than 80 percent of radio-tagged pinesnake’s prey species are lost due to semi-fossorial and essentially diurnal, Louisiana pinesnake relocations have shading of herbaceous vegetation. Using and were also relatively immobile (i.e., been underground in pocket gopher radio-telemetry in Bienville Parish, moved less than 33 ft (10 meters (m)) on

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM 06OCP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 69458 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

54.5 percent of days monitored (Ealy et American colubrid snake, the Louisiana compiled and maintains a historical al. 2004, p. 391). In one study, they pinesnake exhibits a remarkably low records database of all known Louisiana spent, on average, 59 percent of daylight reproductive rate (Reichling 1990, p. pinesnake locations (excluding hours (sunrise to sunset) below ground, 221). However, the Louisiana pinesnake telemetry data). According to that and moved an average of 541 ft (163 m) produces the largest eggs (generally 12 database, 267 occurrence records of 235 per day (Ealy et al. 2004, p. 390). Adult cm (5 in) long and 5 cm (2 in) wide) of individual Louisiana pinesnakes have males in a Louisiana study by Himes et any U.S. snake (Reichling 1990, p. 221). been verified from 1927 through al. moved an average of 495 ft (150 m) It also produces the largest hatchlings December 21, 2015 (excluding daily (longest = 3,802 ft (1,159 m)), reported for any North American snake, reintroductions), all from Louisiana and adult females 348 ft (106 m), and ranging 18 to 22 in (45 to 55 cm) in Texas (Pierce 2015, unpub. data). By juveniles 112 ft (34 m) (Himes 1998, p. length, and up to 3.77 ounces (oz) (107 comparison, for the Florida pinesnake 18). Himes et al. (2006, p. 107) grams (g)) in weight (Reichling 1990, p. (Pituophis melanoleucus mugitus), a documented an average home range size 221). No Louisiana pinesnake nests have species with a four State range (Ernst of 82 ac (33.2 ha) (range 16 to 267 ac been located in the wild. Captive and Ernst 2003, p. 281), there are 874 (6.5 to 108 ha)) for the Louisiana Louisiana pinesnakes can live over 30 records of occurrence through 2015 in pinesnake. Himes et al. also found that years, but females have not reproduced the State of Florida alone (Enge 2016, adult males had larger average home beyond the age of 18 years (Reichling pers. comm.). Similarly, there are ranges (145 acres (ac) (58.7 hectares and Schad 2010, p. 5). approximately 395 total records of black (ha))) than females (25 ac (14 ha)) and Historical and Current Distribution pinesnakes (Pituophis melanoleucus juveniles (13 ac (5.5 ha)) (Himes 1998, lodingi) since 1932 (Hinderliter 2016, p. 18). The Louisiana pinesnake historically pers.comm.). occurred in portions of northwest and Baird’s pocket gopher is the primary west-central Louisiana and extreme Based on the Louisiana pinesnake prey of the Louisiana pinesnake east-central Texas (Conant 1956, p. 19). database, there are records from seven (Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 58), comprising This area coincides with an isolated, parishes in Louisiana (Beauregard, an estimated 53 percent of available and the most westerly, occurrence of the Bienville, Jackson, Natchitoches, individual prey records (75 percent of longleaf pine ecosystem and is situated Rapides, Sabine, and Vernon) and 11 total prey biomass) (Rudolph et al. 2012, west of the Mississippi River. Most of counties in Texas (Angelina, Hardin, p. 243). The Louisiana pinesnake the sandy, longleaf pine-dominated Jasper, Nacogdoches, Newton, Polk, exhibits specialized prey handling savannahs historically inhabited by the Sabine, San Augustine, Trinity, Tyler, behavior for the burrow-dwelling pocket Louisiana pinesnake had been lost by and Wood) (Figure 1). Previous gopher not common among constricting the mid-1930s (Bridges and Orzell 1989, Louisiana pinesnake reports that are not snake species (Rudolph et al. 2002, pp. p. 246; Frost 1993, p. 30). After virgin included in this database are: single 59–61). The Louisiana pinesnake is also longleaf pine was cut, it rarely records for Calcasieu and Jefferson known to eat eastern moles (Scalopus regenerated naturally. In some parts of Davis Parishes in Louisiana (Williams aquaticus), cotton rats (Sigmodon the Southeast, free-ranging hogs and Cordes 1996, p. 35), considered hispidus), deer mice (Peromyscus sp.), depredated the longleaf pine seedlings, suspect (Pierce 2015, unpub. data; harvest mice (Reithrodontomys sp.), and and fire suppression allowed shrubs, Thomas et al. 1976, pp. 253–254; Walls turtle (probably Trachemys scripta) eggs hardwoods, and loblolly pine to 2008, pers. comm.); a single record from (Rudolph et al. 2002, p. 59; Rudolph et dominate (Frost 1993, pp. 34–36). The Cherokee County, Texas, which was al. 2012, p. 244). naturally maintained open structure and erroneous (Pierce 2009, pers. comm.); Louisiana pinesnake sexual maturity abundant herbaceous vegetation single records from Montgomery and is attained at an approximate length of characteristic of the historical longleaf Walker Counties in Texas reclassified as 4 ft (120 cm) and an age of pine forests was diminished or lost, and, Pituophis catenifer (Pierce 2008, pers. approximately 3 years (Himes et al. therefore, it is likely that undocumented comm.); two records from Rapides 2002, p. 686). The Louisiana pinesnake populations of this species historically Parish, Louisiana, and one from is an egg-layer (oviparous), with a occurred but were lost before 1930. Caldwell County, Texas, from the 1960s gestation period of about 21 days The U.S. Forest Service (USFS), considered not verifiable (Reichling (Reichling 1988, p. 77), followed by 60 Southern Research Station (SRS), 2012, pers. comm.; Thomas et al. 1976, days of incubation. Having the smallest Wildlife Habitat and Silviculture pp. 253–254). clutch size (three to five) of any North Laboratory in Nacogdoches, Texas, has BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM 06OCP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 69459

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C use of an area, but are the best available traps, with and without drift fences, are Despite being primarily diurnal, the estimate. Currently trapping is the only effective in catching snakes similar in Louisiana pinesnake’s apparent rarity, standardized and most effective known size, and related to the Louisiana secretive nature, and preference for method for surveying Louisiana pinesnake, including the bullsnake occupying pocket gopher burrow pinesnakes. While it is the most (Pituophis catenifer sayi), black systems has made it difficult to generate effective, it is also expensive and labor pinesnake, Florida pinesnake, and extensive natural history information intensive. Trapping for Louisiana northern pinesnake (Pituophis (Ealy et al. 2004, pp. 383–384). pinesnakes involves the use of multiple melanoleucus melanoleucus) (Burgdorf Trapping results are functions of trap sets of drift fences with box traps in an et al. 2005, p. 424; Fitch 1951, p. 80; location selection, trap success, and true area either known to be inhabited by Yager et al. 2005, p. 24; Zappalorti 2016, presence or absence; thus trapping data Louisiana pinesnakes or that appears to p. 7; Enge 2016, pers. comm.). only approximate Louisiana pinesnake have suitable habitat. Box and funnel

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM 06OCP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS EP06OC16.015 69460 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

Since 1993, extensive Louisiana habitat currently considered occupied estimating the boundaries of the pinesnake trapping has been conducted (based upon 1993–2015 occurrence EOHAs. at first near recent recorded occurrences data) is primarily concentrated on All Louisiana pinesnake verified of the species that appeared to be in public lands controlled by the occurrence records were used for EOHA suitable habitat, and then more broadly, Department of Defense (DOD) (Joint analysis except for: Those obtained in other locations of varying habitat Readiness Training Center and Fort Polk prior to 1993 (before extensive trapping conditions within the snake’s historical [Fort Polk] and Peason Ridge), the USFS began); and records older than 11 years range (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 464) by (KNF and Angelina National Forest (from the time of analysis; which is the the USFS, the U.S. Army, the Memphis [ANF]), and privately owned industrial estimated Louisiana pinesnake Zoo, and the Louisiana Department of timberlands in Louisiana and Texas. generational turnover period (Marti Wildlife and Fisheries (LDWF). There is also a reintroduction 2014, pers. comm.)), when traps within Trapping has been conducted to provide feasibility-study population of 0.6 mi (1 km) of those records had been animals for telemetry studies, to Louisiana pinesnakes that has been unproductive for 5 years of trap effort determine the effects of vehicle-caused established from captive-bred snakes in following the date of the records. mortality, and for surveys to document Grant Parish, Louisiana, on KNF lands. That methodology uses records presence of the species (Rudolph et al. Although single observations were not (including non-trap occurrence) 2015, p. 3). A variable number of traps used to establish known occupied areas, obtained over a period of intense are operated per year in 10 Texas single individuals have been surveys during the estimated counties and seven Louisiana parishes documented in one Louisiana parish generational time of Louisiana (Rudolph et al. 2015, p. 3). Through the and two Texas counties (see Figure 1, pinesnakes in captivity. However, some years, there have been slight above). A single Louisiana pinesnake records that are located in areas modifications to some traps, but it is not was observed crossing a road in 1994 in potentially still occupied by the species, considered to have had major impacts Tyler County, but no others have been where habitat attributes have remained on trap success (Rudolph et al. 2015, p. recorded in that county in the 22 years similar or improved since observed 3). Additionally, over time, new traps since that observation. A single occurrence, are not used for this observation of a Louisiana pinesnake may be added to locations thought to estimation of occupied range because found dead along a road in 2001 contain Louisiana pinesnakes because of significant trapping efforts have not indicates that the current population in the presence of suitable conditions, produced any additional records in that Natchitoches Parish may have extended such as preferred soils (Melder 2015, p. area. 115; Wagner et al. 2014, p. 152). into extreme northwestern Rapides Parish, Louisiana; however, no more The original purpose of the EOHAs In total, trapping during 1993–2015 have been sighted in Rapides Parish designation was to match proactive from throughout the historical range of since 2001. A juvenile Louisiana habitat management activities to areas the Louisiana pinesnake has resulted in pinesnake was captured in 2008, in most likely to be currently occupied by 101 unique individual captures. Nacogdoches County near Garrison, the Louisiana pinesnake (U.S. Fish and Supported by rangewide trapping Texas (Pierce 2015, unpub. data), Wildlife Service 2014, p. 8). Based on results and the historical records suggesting that at least some individuals the previously described methodology, database, Rudolph et al. (2006, p. 467– existed near that site as recently as 8 the following EOHAs have been 469) concluded that the failure to years ago. delineated (Figure 2): (1) The Bienville document existing Louisiana pinesnake To estimate the size of occupied EOHA located on privately owned populations at known historical habitat areas, all Louisiana pinesnake industrial timberlands in Bienville localities, coupled with the degradation records from 1993 to 2015 (Pierce 2015, Parish, Louisiana; (2) the Kisatchie and fragmentation of habitat in those unpub. data) containing location data EOHA located on USFS lands (the areas, indicates that the Louisiana and meeting the criteria established Kisatchie Ranger District of the KNF in pinesnake had been extirpated from below (157 records), were plotted in a Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana); (3) the significant portions of its historical Geographic Information System (GIS). Peason Ridge EOHA located on DOD range. Three parishes (Beauregard, Using ArcMap (Version 10.2.1), a lands (Vernon and Sabine Parishes) and Jackson, and Rapides) in Louisiana, and minimum convex polygon (MCP) was a small amount of private lands seven counties (Hardin, Nacogdoches, drawn around clusters of records, and a (inholdings) in Louisiana; (4) the Fort Polk, Sabine, San Augustine, Trinity, 0.6-mile (mi) (1.0-kilometer (km)) buffer Polk/Vernon EOHA located on DOD and Wood) in Texas, are now was drawn around each MCP, resulting lands (Fort Polk), USFS lands (the considered unoccupied by the Louisiana in the estimated occupied habitat area Vernon Unit/Calcasieu District of the pinesnake. Rudolph et al. (2006, pp. (EOHA) for Louisiana pinesnakes KNF), and a small amount of private 467–469) determined that six occupied represented by that group of records. lands (inholdings) in Vernon Parish, areas were in existence in 2006. In 2007, The MCP was buffered to accommodate Louisiana; (5) the Scrappin’ Valley an area on the Kisatchie District of the the fact that trap locations were not EOHA located primarily on privately Kisatchie National Forest (KNF) in placed on the landscape with the intent owned timberlands in Newton County, Louisiana was determined to be of delineating population boundaries. A Texas; (6) the Angelina EOHA located occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake. 0.6-mi (1.0-km) buffer was used because on USFS lands (the southern section of Based on 2014 analysis (and reaffirmed telemetry data indicate this is a ANF in Angelina and Jasper Counties) by 2016 analysis) of occurrence records reasonable approximation of the area and private lands in Texas; and (7) the of counties or parishes with multiple that a Louisiana pinesnake uses during Catahoula Reintroduction Feasibility observations since 1993, six natural, 1 or more years (Rudolph 2008a, pers. EOHA located on USFS lands (the potentially extant, populations of comm.). After discussions with experts, Catahoula Ranger District of the KNF in Louisiana pinesnakes occur in four including Dr. Craig Rudolph and Grant Parish, Louisiana). Utilizing the parishes (Bienville, Natchitoches, members of the Association of Zoos and methods described above, the Winn Sabine, and Vernon) in Louisiana, and Aquariums (AZA), the Service Ranger District of the KNF in three counties (Angelina, Jasper, and developed criteria to determine the data Natchitoches Parish, Louisiana, and the Newton) in Texas. Louisiana pinesnake and methodology to be used for Sabine National Forest in Sabine

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM 06OCP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 69461

County, Texas, identified in 2008, are no longer considered occupied. BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

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 LOUISIANA PINESNAKE OCCUPIED HABITAT AREAS AS DETERMINED FOR 2016 ACCORDING TO LOCATION RECORDS THROUGH 2015 [Totals may not sum to rounding]

Total for esti- Estimated occupied habitat U.S. Forest Department of State and mated occu- State area Service Defense municipal Private pied habitat area

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

Louisiana Total ...... 37,592.0 30,748.5 363.7 60,949.9 129,654.1 (15,213.0) (12,443.5) (147.2) (24,665.6) (52,469.2)

Texas ...... Scrappin’ Valley ...... 0 0 21.3 5,036.5 5,057.8 (0) (0) (8.6) (2,038.2) (2,046.8)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM 06OCP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS EP06OC16.016 69462 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—LAND OWNERSHIP IN ACRES (HECTARES) OF ESTIMATED LOUISIANA PINESNAKE OCCUPIED HABITAT AREAS AS DETERMINED FOR 2016 ACCORDING TO LOCATION RECORDS THROUGH 2015—Continued [Totals may not sum to rounding]

Total for esti- Estimated occupied habitat U.S. Forest Department of State and mated occu- State area Service Defense municipal Private pied habitat area

Angelina ...... 9,509.3 3.3 114.7 1,338.6 10,965.8 (3,848.3) (1.4) (46.4) (541.7) (4,437.7)

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

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

Population Estimates and Status between 1993 and 2015 (Pierce 2016a, of the Bienville EOHA has produced the The Louisiana pinesnake is pers. comm.), which is substantially best trap success of any trapping area in recognized as one of the rarest snakes in lower than those found in Smith’s study areas currently known to be inhabited North America (Young and Vandeventer of Florida pinesnake. Actual population by the species. Consequently, Reichling 1988, p. 203; Himes et al. 2006, p. 114). densities cannot be reliably estimated et al. (2008, p. 10) believed this site was It was classified in 2007 as endangered from trapping data because mark- critical for the preservation of this on the International Union for recapture analyses cannot be conducted species. Trapping from a previous effort Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN’s) Red without sufficient numbers of Louisiana on the Winn District portion of this List of Threatened Species (version 3.1; pinesnake recaptures, but similar population between 2000 and 2001 http://www.iucnredlist.org/). trapping methods have been used by provided two captures (in addition to Most Louisiana pinesnake records others to estimate snake abundance. one recapture). Trap efforts in the same All Louisiana pinesnake EOHAs that were used to approximately area from 2004 to 2013 have produced contain at least some suitable habitat, delineate occupied habitat for 2016 zero captures in 7,525 trap days, and the and experience varying amounts of were acquired by trapping. We area is now regarded as unoccupied. beneficial forest management. However, Within the privately owned considered each day that a trap was most populations appear to show either timberland described above, two open a ‘‘trap day.’’ Thus, for an area a decline or no conclusive change in disjunct areas are managed for the being surveyed, all traps in that area trap success through time, indicating Louisiana pinesnake with thinning, that were open contribute to the number that numbers of individuals in most longleaf pine restoration, targeted of trap days (i.e., four traps that are open populations are likely decreasing herbicide use, and prescribed burning for 3 days each equals 12 trap days). The (Rudolph et al. 2015, p. 8). Despite (see ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce ratio of trap days and number of unique continued effort, some populations have Habitat Destruction, Modification, or snakes captured is called ‘‘trap success’’ not experienced trap success or other Curtailment of Its Range,’’ below). (i.e., two unique snakes captured during occurrence records for many years. For Kisatchie EOHA 2,000 trap days = 1 capture per 1,000 this reason, as discussed earlier, the trap days or a 1:1,000 trap success) and Winn Ranger District of the KNF portion Two relatively recent Louisiana was determined for each population. of the Bienville EOHA and the Sabine pinesnake occurrence records (one non- Louisiana pinesnake trapping across the EOHA are no longer considered capture sighting (2003) and one hand- species’ entire range (including areas occupied. Trapping efforts (all provided capture (2007)) exist for this population. outside of EOHAs in Louisiana and by Pierce (2015, unpub. data)) and No Louisiana pinesnakes were captured Texas) during 1993 through 2015 has habitat management actions are during 12,011 trap days (1997 to 2003) resulted in 101 unique individual presented below for each EOHA. on the Kisatchie District of the KNF. captures during 448,892 trap days However, past trapping did not occur in (1:4,444 trap success) (Pierce 2016a, Bienville EOHA the locations of the records mentioned pers. comm.). Trapping information can Based on trap and other occurrence above. Furthermore, despite the be compared to similar species to get a records (84 occurrences (including trap presence of substantial amounts of sense of the relative rarity of this species recaptures) from 1988 through 2015) suitable habitat on the Kisatchie when compared to a similar species (Pierce 2015, unpub. data), the Bienville District, past trapping did not sample trapped in a comparable way. For population is widely believed to be the the best habitat (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. instance, a Florida pinesnake trapping largest extant Louisiana pinesnake 469). Trapping resumed within this effort using similar drift fence trapping population (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 465; population in 2012, in the best habitat, methods in one 30,000-ac (12,141-ha) Reichling et al. 2008, p. 10). For all and has continued through 2015, but no section of the species’ range captured 87 trapping efforts so far (1995 through captures (by hand or trap) have occurred unique individuals during 50,960 trap 2015, not continuous), trap success for since the 2007 capture (Pierce 2015, days (1:585.7 trap success) over a 13- this population was 1:854. While trap unpub. data). year period from 2003 to 2015 (Smith success varies annually, the trap success Active habitat management for the 2016b, pers. comm.). The Louisiana in this area has been consistently greater endangered red-cockaded woodpecker pinesnake site with the greatest long- than for any other population overall. (Picoides borealis) and the Louisiana term trap success by far, the Bienville Trapping on that private timberland has pinesnake occur within and EOHA, which is 61,090.9 ac (24,722.6 only recently resumed in 2012, after surrounding the EOHA of this ha), has a trap success rate of 1:854.0 cessation in 2009. The Kepler Lake area population (see ‘‘Conservation Efforts to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM 06OCP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 69463

Reduce Habitat Destruction, days (a success rate of 1:426), and establishment of a viable Modification, or Curtailment of Its demonstrating a reduction of trap population in restored habitat. In total, Range,’’ below). success at this site (Pierce 2015, unpub. 77 captive-bred Louisiana pinesnakes data). (11 in 2010, 15 in 2011, 3 in 2012, 15 Peason Ridge EOHA Active habitat management for the in 2013, 1 in 2014, 15 in 2015, and 17 Six occurrence records (from 2003 to red-cockaded woodpecker and the in 2016) have been released into the 2013, all observed after 2005) exist for Louisiana pinesnake occurs at this site wild at the Catahoula Ranger District of this population; one of which was a (see ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce the KNF (Pierce 2016, unpub. data; non-trap sighting. The trapping effort for Habitat Destruction, Modification, or Pierce 2016b, pers. comm.; Smith 2016a, the last 5 years (2009 to 2013 (8,446 trap Curtailment of Its Range,’’ below). pers. comm.). This area is not near any days)) produced four captures, one in Despite Louisiana pinesnake known Louisiana pinesnake populations 2010, two in 2012, and one in 2013, occurrences as recent as 2008, and and not within the known historical with a success rate of 1:2,112 (Pierce proactive habitat management by the range of the species. Detection of 2015, unpub. data). former and current private landowners, released snakes is occurring within this Active habitat management for the the lack of recent trap success when EOHA through monitoring of deployed red-cockaded woodpecker and the compared to trap success in the 1990s Automated PIT Tag Recorders (APTRs) Louisiana pinesnake occurring at this suggests that this population has and trapping. Prior to March 22, 2016, site has stabilized or increased the declined due to prolonged minimal 60 snakes have been released, and as of amount of preferable habitat that suitable habitat availability. that date a total of 26 individual snakes exhibits suitable vegetative Angelina EOHA have been detected at least once after characteristics (see ‘‘Conservation release (detections beginning 1 day after Efforts to Reduce Habitat Destruction, Seven occurrence records during 2003 release): of those, 14 snakes have been Modification, or Curtailment of Its to 2013 exist for this population. Four detected alive more than 60 days after Range,’’ below). were unique trap captures, one was a release, of those, 10 have been detected trap recapture, one was hand-caught Fort Polk/Vernon EOHA alive in the year following the winter alive on a road, and one previously after release, of those, 7 have been Twenty-two occurrence records from captured and pit-tagged individual was detected 2 years (winters) after release, 2003 to 2013, including four non-trap found dead on a road in 2009. Both the of those, 3 have been detected 3 years sightings and four trap-recaptures, exist trap recapture and hand-caught (winters) after release, and of those, 1 for this population. Trap success for this individual were removed from the wild snake has been detected 4 years population over 5 years (2009 to 2013) for captive breeding. From 2009 to 2013, (winters) after release (Pierce 2016b, is estimated to be 1:2,625 (eight unique no unique trap captures have occurred pers. comm.; Pierce 2016c, pers. individual captures out of 21,003 trap within this population during 16,277 comm.). days), which includes all recent trap days. The most recent unique Active habitat management for the unsuccessful surveying on the Vernon individual trap capture at this site was red-cockaded woodpecker and the Unit of the KNF. Since 2003, no in 2007. However, a recapture did occur Louisiana pinesnake occurs at the captures have occurred on the Vernon within this population as recently as Catahoula Ranger District site (see Unit. Excluding trapping on the Vernon 2012, and that individual was removed ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat Unit, DOD observed a trap success rate from the wild for captive breeding. Trap Destruction, Modification, or over 5 years (2009 to 2013) of 1:1,959 success rates have shown a steady Curtailment of Its Range,’’ below). (eight unique individual captures decline throughout the effort period: Captive-Breeding Population during 15,672 trap days) on DOD From 1992 to 1997, success rate was property (Pierce 2015, unpub. data). 1:652 (2 captures during 1,303 trap The captive Louisiana pinesnake zoo Two snakes were trapped in 2014, and days); during 1998 to 2005, success rate population established in 1984 was there were three records of occurrence was 1:3,420 (2 captures during 6,840 initially maintained through wild in 2015 (one hand-captured and two trap days); and during 2007 to 2012, collection. The AZA Species Survival dead on roads). success rate was 1:5,305 (3 captures Plan (SSP) for the Louisiana pinesnake Active habitat management for the during 15,916 trap days). However, all was implemented in 2000, to manage red-cockaded woodpecker and the trap effort within this population the zoo population (Reichling et al., in Louisiana pinesnake has stabilized or produced only a total of seven unique litt. 2015, p. 1). The goals of the SSP are increased the amount of habitat that has individual Louisiana pinesnakes since to: Maintain an assurance colony for suitable vegetative characteristics (see the 1990s (27,656 trap days) (Pierce wild Louisiana pinesnake populations, ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce Habitat 2015, unpub. data). preserve or increase genetic Destruction, Modification, or Active habitat management for the heterozygosity into the future, preserve Curtailment of Its Range,’’ below). red-cockaded woodpecker and the representative genetic integrity of wild Louisiana pinesnake occurs at this site populations, and provide individuals as Scrappin’ Valley EOHA (see ‘‘Conservation Efforts to Reduce needed for research and repopulation On this primarily private land, five Habitat Destruction, Modification, or for the conservation of wild populations occurrence records during 2005 to 2015 Curtailment of Its Range,’’ below). (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2013, exist for this population; however, two pp. 32–33). As of March 2016, the of those were road mortalities, two were Catahoula Reintroduction Feasibility captive-breeding Louisiana pinesnake removed from the wild for captive EOHA population consists of 111 individuals breeding, and one was sighted but not An informal committee was (51 males, 53 females, and 7 unsexed captured. There have been no trap established to oversee and conduct an individuals) in 18 AZA accredited captures since 2009 during 15,628 trap experimental reintroduction of the institutions and 2 non-AZA partner days within this population and no Louisiana pinesnake in an attempt to institutions (Reichling 2016, pers. other occurrences. During trapping demonstrate the feasibility of comm.). Initially, three populations efforts on this land from 1995 to 1997, reintroducing a population using were managed based on their different five captures occurred during 2,128 trap individuals from a captive population, geographic origins, which are separated

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM 06OCP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 69464 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

by rivers (one from Texas, separated half of the 20th century, Louisiana, Impacts from urbanization are not from Louisiana by the Sabine River, and Alabama, and Mississippi lost between consistent throughout the Southeast, two from Louisiana, which are 60 and 90 percent of their already and most population growth is separated by the Red River) (Reichling reduced longleaf acreage (Outcalt and predicted to occur near major cities and Schad 2010, p. 1). Recent genetic Sheffield 1996, pp. 1–10). By the late (Wear and Greis 2013, p. 21), which are analyses showed that all populations 1980s, the natural longleaf pine acreage generally not near known Louisiana were similar in population structure and in Louisiana and Texas was only about pinesnake occurrences; however, the the Texas and southern Louisiana 15 and 8 percent, respectively, of what most recent assessment still predicts populations were difficult to separate had existed in 1935 (Bridges and Orzell decreased use of land for forests (mainly genetically (Kwiatkowski et al. 2014, p. 1989, p. 246). Those longleaf pine due to urbanization) in the next 45 years 12). Therefore, currently one group is forests were primarily converted to in all of the parishes (Louisiana) and derived from Bienville Parish, extensive monoculture pine plantations counties (Texas) historically and Louisiana, founders and the other group (Bridges and Orzell 1989, p. 246), which currently occupied by the species is a combination of Vernon Parish, presumably were not primarily managed (Klepzig et al. 2014, pp. 21–23). Louisiana, and eastern Texas snakes for enhancement of herbaceous High-quality longleaf pine forest (Reichling 2016, pers. comm.). vegetation. habitat, which is generally characterized In short, the longleaf dominant pine by a high, open canopy and shallow Summary of Factors Affecting the forest (longleaf pine forest type plus litter and duff layers, is maintained by Species longleaf pine in mixed species stands) frequent, low-intensity fires, which in Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533), in the southeastern United States turn restrict a woody midstory and and its implementing regulations at 50 declined approximately 96 percent from promote the flowering and seed CFR part 424, set forth the procedures the historical estimate of 92 million ac production of fire-stimulated for adding species to the Federal Lists (37 million ha) (Frost 1993, p. 20) to groundcover plants (Oswalt et al. 2012, of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife approximately 3.75 million ac (1.52 pp. 2–3). The Louisiana pinesnake was and Plants. Under section 4(a)(1) of the million ha) in 1990 (Guldin et al. 2016, historically associated with natural Act, we may list a species based on (A) p. 324). Since the 1990s, longleaf pine longleaf pine forests, which were The present or threatened destruction, dominant forest acreage has been maintained in good condition by natural modification, or curtailment of its trending upward in parts of the processes and have the abundant habitat or range; (B) overutilization for Southeast through restoration efforts herbaceous vegetation necessary to commercial, recreational, scientific, or (Guldin et al. 2016, pp. 323–324). By support the Louisiana pinesnake’s educational purposes; (C) disease or 2010, the longleaf dominant pine forest primary prey, the Baird’s pocket gopher predation; (D) the inadequacy of stands had increased to approximately (Himes 1998, p. 43; Sulentich et al. existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) 4.3 million ac (1.7 million ha) (Oswalt 1991, p. 3; Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, other natural or manmade factors et al. 2012, p. 10; Guldin et al. 2016, pp. p. 17). Based on trapping surveys and affecting its continued existence. Listing 323–324). A recent estimate for the location records, it appears that areas actions may be warranted based on any extent of longleaf dominant pine forest managed with silvicultural practices for of the above threat factors, singly or in in 2015 was 4.7 million ac (2.8 million fiber production that do not allow combination. In this section, we ha) (America’s Longleaf Restoration sufficient herbaceous vegetation growth summarize the biological condition of Initiative 2016, p. 12). do not support viable Louisiana the species and its resources, and the In general, southern forest futures pinesnake populations (Rudolph et al. influences of the listing factors on them, models predict declines of overall forest 2006, p. 470) because the snake’s pocket to assess the species’ overall viability land area in the southeastern United gopher prey requires herbaceous and the risks to that viability. States between 2 and 10 percent in the vegetation for forage. next 50 years (Wear and Greis 2013, p. Rudolph et al. (2006, p. 467) assessed Factor A: The Present or Threatened 78). The model-projected losses of habitat conditions during 1999 and Destruction, Modification, or natural pine forest in the Southeast 2000, at the locations of all historical Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range would be mostly the result of Louisiana pinesnake records (n = 118 Both the quantity and quality of the conversion to planted pine forests (Wear localities) known at that time. They natural longleaf pine ecosystem, the and Greis 2013, p. 79). For the southern found that 70 percent (26 of 37) of the primary historical habitat of the Gulf region, model runs assuming high localities on public lands met their Louisiana pinesnake, have declined levels of urbanization and high timber criteria as excellent or good condition, sharply in Louisiana and Texas since prices predict large percentage losses in whereas only 33 percent (27 of 81) of European settlement. The loss, longleaf pine in some parishes and the localities on private lands met their degradation, and fragmentation of the counties of Louisiana and Texas that criteria as excellent or good condition. longleaf pine dominant ecosystem was were historically and that are currently Due to habitat fragmentation, most sites historically caused by logging, occupied by the Louisiana pinesnake, with excellent or good habitat were turpentining, fire suppression, alteration while two Louisiana parishes in the isolated and small (typically a few of fire seasonality and periodicity, current occupied range are expected to hundred hectares, or less (Rudolph et al. conversion to generally off-site pine gain (less than the percent decline 2006, p. 466)). The distribution of species plantations, agriculture, and predicted in the other parishes and Louisiana pinesnakes within the current free-range hogs (Frost 1993, pp. 24–30, counties) in longleaf pine acreage range was further restricted because 31, 35). Virtually all virgin timber in the (Klepzig et al. 2014, p. 53). The outer intensive land use activities and the southern United States was cut during boundary or ‘‘footprint’’ of the longleaf disruption of natural fire regimes had intensive logging from 1870 to 1920 pine ecosystem across its historical decreased the quantity and quality of (Frost 1993, p. 30). Only about 2.9 range has contracted as recently as the the intervening areas as habitat for this percent of longleaf pine forests in period of 1990 to 2010, with losses species (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 470). Louisiana and Texas were uncut old- (primarily due to conversion to loblolly Based on the low capture rates reported growth stands in 1935 (Bridges and pine) in western Louisiana and eastern during trapping from 1993 to 2001, and Orzell 1989, p. 246). During the latter Texas (Oswalt et al. 2012, pp. 10–14). the limited habitat availability, Rudolph

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM 06OCP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules 69465

et al. (2006, p. 468) concluded that allows continual maintenance of section, we describe the extensive remnant Louisiana pinesnake herbaceous communities. Other pine habitat restoration efforts that have populations are not large. In fact, during species lack these adaptations to fire occurred on Federal lands throughout this 9-year trapping period, only 24 that allow for frequent fire during all life the range (to a lesser extent on private unique captures of Louisiana stages (especially very young trees). lands) that have reduced the threat of pinesnakes occurred out of 2,372 total Non-longleaf pine communities can be habitat loss for some populations. We unique snake captures in 101,828 trap managed to provide suitable habitat also discuss the lack of a definitive days (a trap success of 1:3,775 for within a stand when burning is not positive response of the Louisiana Louisiana pinesnake). At many sites, no recommended (e.g., very young trees) by pinesnake to these efforts, at present. pinesnakes were captured, but even at using herbicides and other techniques. Existing and Planned Conservation sites where they were captured, the However, if those techniques alter the Efforts: As early as the 1980s, forest average trap success was only 1:733 composition or density of the restoration and management had been (Rudolph et al. 2006, p. 465). groundcover vegetation and pocket implemented on Fort Polk, Peason The disruption of natural fire regimes, gophers decline in response, it is likely Ridge, and adjacent USFS lands to due to fire suppression and inadequate, that Louisiana pinesnakes will decline restore and maintain conditions of infrequent prescribed burning, is the in response as well (USFWS 2001). In widely spaced trees, clear of dense leading factor responsible for the addition, longleaf pine structure (e.g., midstory growth (U.S. Department of degradation of the small amount of branch and needle structure) naturally the Army 2014, p. 21). Management remaining suitable longleaf pine forest allows more sunlight penetration at occurred for training suitability and red- habitat (Rudolph and Burgdorf 1997, p. similar stem densities than other pine cockaded woodpecker habitat, and most 118; Rudolph 2000, p. 7). In the absence species. recently for Louisiana pinesnake of frequent and effective fires, upland Regardless of the methods used to habitat. The requirements for those pine savannah ecosystems rapidly promote herbaceous vegetation in the three objectives happen to have develop a midstory of hardwoods and understory, the amount and types of significant overlap, especially the other overstory species that suppress or herbaceous vegetation are limited by the maintenance of open canopy pine forest. eliminate any herbaceous understory. amount of sunlight able to reach the USFS has also implemented habitat As the presence of pocket gophers is forest floor and, for some species, by the restoration and management for many directly related to the extent of presence of fire (i.e., to scarify seeds, years on Sabine National Forest (SNF), herbaceous vegetation available to them, promote seed production, and consume ANF, and KNF to benefit the red- their population numbers and leaf litter). Therefore, conversion and cockaded woodpecker, as provided for distribution decline as such vegetation management of overstory vegetation that in its land and resource management declines, which in turn directly impacts does not provide for continued plans (USFS 1996, pp. 107–134; USFS the number and distribution of maintenance of herbaceous vegetation 1999, pp. 2–61 to 2–73). In 2003, a Louisiana pinesnakes. The use of in otherwise suitable habitat will further candidate conservation agreement prescribed burning has decreased on limit habitat available to the Louisiana (CCA) for the Louisiana pinesnake, private timberlands because of legal pinesnake. which includes the Service, USFS, liability and the expense of liability Habitat fragmentation threatens the DOD, Texas Parks and Wildlife insurance, the planting of pine species continued existence of all Louisiana Department (TPWD), and LDWF, was which have a reduced tolerance to fire, pinesnake populations, particularly completed. Targeted conservation limited funds and personnel, and smoke those on private lands. This is actions are currently being implemented management issues. According to Wear frequently the result of urban as part of that agreement. The CCA is and Greis (2013, p. 509), southern development, conversion of longleaf designed to identify and establish forests are likely to see increasing pine sites to intensively managed pine beneficial habitat management actions challenges to prescribed burning in the plantations, and an increase in the for the Louisiana pinesnake on Federal future as land-use changes involving number of roads. When patches of lands in Louisiana and Texas, and fuels management, increased urban available habitat become separated provides a means for the partnering interface, and revised safety and health beyond the dispersal range of a species, agencies to work cooperatively on regulations will continue to constrain small populations may become less projects that avoid and minimize prescribed fire efforts. Some of these resilient because additions of impacts to the species. The CCA also set constraints could be in the form of individuals to the population may up mechanisms to exchange information reduced fire intervals or reductions in decline along with their potential on successful management practices and average area burned per fire event genetic diversity contributions, thus coordinate research efforts. SNF [Sabine (strategies often used in management of increasing the risk of extirpation (see Louisiana pinesnake population pine plantations), which may not discussion under Factor E: Other considered extirpated since 2014] and provide adequate fire intensity or Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting ANF in Texas, and KNF and Fort Polk frequency to suppress the overgrown Its Continued Existence). in Louisiana, agreed in the CCA to understory and midstory conditions that In summary, habitat loss and continue or start new stem thinning and limit herbaceous vegetation growth. continuing degradation of the Louisiana prescribed burning operations in Overstory species other than longleaf pinesnake’s habitat remain a significant sections of upland pine forests and, pine can be managed to provide suitable threat to this species’ continued where possible, to convert forests to understory for pocket gophers, but this existence. longleaf pine (CCA 2003, p. 12–16). is generally more difficult, as these Since completion of the CCA, species lack the physical characteristics Conservation Efforts To Reduce Habitat beneficial forest management activities and ecological adaptations to sustain Destruction, Modification, or conducted by USFS and Fort Polk have desired understory conditions during all Curtailment of Its Range been formally dedicated to conservation life stages, especially when managed When considering whether or not to of the Louisiana pinesnake. Removing with prescribed fire. Specifically, list a species under the Act, we must some trees from a dense stand with longleaf pine is adapted to thrive with identify existing conservation efforts heavy canopy cover allows more light to frequent fire during all life stages, which and their effect on the species. In this reach the ground, which can promote

VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:26 Oct 05, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\06OCP1.SGM 06OCP1 sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS 69466 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 194 / Thursday, October 6, 2016 / Proposed Rules

the growth of herbaceous vegetation, an Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) dedicate resources to areas the species important food source for the primary and the AZA as cooperators (U.S. Fish is most likely to inhabit. However, the prey of the Louisiana pinesnake. and Wildlife Service 2013, pp. 7–8). updated CCA addresses threats from Prescribed burning helps to control That agreement updates, supersedes, habitat loss only on Federal lands, and midstory cover, particularly hardwood and improves upon the 2003 CCA, and for the activities performed by NRCS on species that compete with pine uses significant new information private land. The CCA also includes seedlings and reduce light penetration. derived from research, threats guidance on practices to reduce impacts Converting forests to longleaf pine is assessments, and habitat modeling that to Louisiana pinesnakes from vehicles helpful because longleaf pine is better was not available in 2003 to focus on improved roads and off-road all- adapted to fire (and tolerates it at an conservation actions, including terrain vehicle (ATV) trails (see earlier age) than other pine species, and beneficial forest management, in areas ‘‘Conservation Efforts To Reduce therefore is generally easier to manage with the best potential to become Threats Under Factor E,’’ below). with prescribed fire over multiple suitable habitat for the Louisiana Thousands of acres of forests on rotations. Historically, Louisiana pinesnake. Those areas are called Federal lands have been treated over pinesnakes were predominantly found habitat management units (HMUs), and many years with prescribed burning, in longleaf pine forests, and that forest they were delineated based on existing and that treatment along with tree type was historically the dominant type red-cockaded woodpecker habitat thinning continues to the present. The in the areas that now make up the KNF, management areas (HMAs) in upland following tables summarize recent forest ANF, and Fort Polk. pine forests. Those areas were further management activities on Federal lands The CCA was revised in 2013, and defined by the location of preferable and where Louisiana pinesnake populations now also includes the U.S. Department suitable soils (LRSF-Model) for the occur. Values have been rounded to the of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Louisiana pinesnake in order to 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])